Do you consider the Confederate Flag Racist?

[Paint it Black]

As I recall, it was N Korea/China who did the "invading".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NK invaded SK, USA/SK then invaded NK and China joined the fray.

[cptdeath]

I'm sure some people in the UK feel the same way about the US flag.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder what the people in the U.K. feel about the confederate flag?

[Paint it Black]

To restate it exactly as listed in the title:

One aspect, of many confederates was that they were "racist" (also the same was true for a much larger percentage of the northern population at the time than is generally understood) they were also many other things, coragious, loyal , hardworking, funny... and everything else under the sun.  Regardless, i dont think that the flag itself is nessisarly inherently a "racist symbol" but i know some view it as such.

Good points, Troy.

The South has gotten an unfair shake when it comes to the 'racist' card.

If you would have asked the vast majority of Union soldiers in 1861 if they were fighting for the black man I am sure most would have said no, they were fighting for the Union.

Lincoln himself declared as much.

When asked, US GRant said, in 1861, I believe, that if this war was over black folks, he would turn in his sword and fight for the other side.

I would also not, for instance consider the American flag "oppressive" or "racist" despite many instances in our history of being both of those things.

One point I alwasy make in this debate has to do with the numerous INdian wars the US prosecuted during its "manifest destiny."

Should not the American flag be flown if it were to offend what Native Americans we left alive?

Also, the AMerican flag was flown over the entire South before the war while the machinations of slavery were running full bore.

Im a pretty hardcore Civil War buff (and American History in general) and this is one of the subjects CW buffs love to debate endlessly.  Its an interesting subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Count me in as one of those as well. The Civil War is my favorite historical subject.

Winners indeed write the history.

[Paint it Black]

Furthermore, Viet Nam was not our war to fight.  It was the US intervening in a spat on the other side of the planet among a language few Americans could comprehend was "not Chinese."  The States had no business being over there -- and especially had no business killing innocents and otherwise brutalising the natives and commiting war crimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We were bound by treaty to defend the integrity of South Vietnam.

The NVA also had no business comitting many many more massacres than My Lai. My Lai was one lone company succombing to the excesses of war. Not an excuse, but certainly not evidence of some American policy of murder and brutalization.

The North Vietnamese/VC had a policy of murder. They killed whoever did not agree with them, kidnapped children and teenagers and forced them to fight for them.

Look into the massacres they committed when they captured Hue City during the Tet Offensive as one lone, grisly chapter in their brutal prosecution of the war.

The UNited States and our allies were, indeed, fighting the good fight, just with a flawed strategy which, in hindsight, was doomed to failure.

IMHO, of course.

[Paint it Black]

A government cannot sponsor something like that, it's ridiculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure it can. Crazy stuff happens in a democracy.

[Paint it Black]

I wonder what the people in the U.K. feel about the confederate flag?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt they really care too much about it.

They have a long history of being anti-slavery, and that is what kept them from fully supporting the Confederacy.

[cptdeath]

I agree. Something that symbolizes suffering to one group of citezens should not be endorsed, officially (be used on state flags, etc). We all know what the civil war was about and that's where that flag came from. Besides, when the south lost, that flag became invalid.

As far as looks are concerned, the desiegn and color scheme are way cooler than the stars and stripes flag. The stars and stripes has always seemed such a terrible looking thing to me. Who puts a blue box in the upper left cornor and fills it with stars? -Ridiculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the south, all of em would grab there crotch and just flip you off. honestly i agree.

I got friends from the south. it,s a totaly different standard. a different culture.

if you were president you would have to find away to remind them we are all americans. I don't want to tell them thay cant do that ,do you?

besides if your a yankee then the south don,t care what you think about it.

really it's not for us to decide what they do down there. I'm sure we are all welcome to visit but not if we start trying to tell them how we want them to do things.

the swaztica was a symbol of peice before I think.

batman is a symbol

rebel flag is a symbol

think of it like brucewayne in batman begins

as a symbol it cannot die

Fu%k the dallass stars and all the white folks at there games and the bush ragime.

I personaly feel that because are state is democratic we are punished federally

by this ragime and take it personell against texas. they need to lay off.

[Paint it Black]

Of course the Southerners consider themselves Americans.

The Confederate States of AMERICA and all.

Actually, at the time, the rebels thought of their war as a continuation of the American revolution, this time against Northern tyranny.

Hence the reason it is often refered to down south as "The War of Northern Aggression."

Note: not saying you were thiking otherwise about the Southerners not being American, just stating the obvious.

[Paint it Black]

I think it should also be remembered that slavery was not illegal and the north could not make slavery illegal for a long time had it not been for the war.

It would have involved ratifying the constitution which is not an easy thing to do. I think you would need a 2/3's majority of states to make slavery illegal.

Another interesting thing about the 13th Amendment which did make slavery illegal.

It reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

After the war, many very bitter southerners used this to continue slavery by convicting blacks of crimes and handing down hard sentences that usually lead to slave labor.

This is how slavery survives to this day. There is an excellent documentary on Angola prison in Louisiana. Angola used to be a plantation and it is still worked that way.

It is like a snapshot of history, hundreds of black men working the fields (with some white guys in there are well, but the vast majority are black) mostly white prison guards on horseback with shotguns keeping the 'boys' in line.

[Paper Hearts]

One of the most basic flaws of democracy is that not all groups of people are represented equally. Democracy, in and of it's self, is only selfishness, not freedom. People, therefore, have a responsibility to look after lesser fragments of the population in such a setting. Certain things that are only symbols of hate are obviously opressive if a government or a majority group gives them sponsorship. I'm not saying wipe out all records of this flag I'm saying that the flag is not valid any more for official use. The south lost.

The American flag was flown over both the north and the south while the slave trade was in "full bore" in both areas, however, the north later went to war to end that, the stars and stripes became a symbol of freedom while a new symbol was created as a battle standard for an area that was against that principal. If native Americans felt the same about the stars and stripes it'd be no different.

[float]

One of the most basic flaws of democracy is that not all groups of people are represented equally. Democracy, in and of it's self, is only selfishness, not freedom. People, therefore, have a responsibility to look after lesser fragments of the population in such a setting. Certain things that are only symbols of hate are obviously opressive if a government or a majority group gives them sponsorship. I'm not saying wipe out all records of this flag I'm saying that the flag is not valid any more for official use. The south lost.

The American flag was flown over both the north and the south while the slave trade was in "full bore" in both areas, however, the north later went to war to end that, the stars and stripes became a symbol of freedom while a new symbol was created as a battle standard for an area that was against that principal. If native Americans felt the same about the stars and stripes it'd be no different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't agree more about Democracy

one of the main reasons Communism doesn't work in the real world is GREED

it doesn't take into account human greed

Democracy lives on it

everyone is able to work as hard as they wish to get ahead and step on as many people as they like

to quote Gordon Gecko..."Greed works"

Democracy works

although it may not be fair

and I believe it works because it caters to the darker demons of our nature, namely GREED

[cptdeath]

imagine if they said "alright yankee's if we can't fly the confederate flag then

you can't fly the rainbow flag"

and then a large group of people tried to succeed cause of that.

make a bunch of rainbow confederate flags and fight to the death cause of the ideal behind it.

theres a sketch

start a civillion colonie in Iraq make the rainbow confederate flag official. you just know if that happened people would die for that flag.

[Paper Hearts]

Socialism works fine throughout most of the world, Float, and in fact, our system has incorporated many socialist ideas, without which, we would fail miserably. It's important to note though that most socialist places are democracys. Socialism in these areas is merely a failsafe put in place to make sure that lesser represented groups are not violated by the majority class. What I am saying is that democracy gives you the right to vote but it does not require that you vote for the greater good. Voting in your own self interests and thinking of no one else is perfectly fine. If a majority black population voted for a new national banner that read : FUCK YOU WHITE CUNTS, we'd have a new flag-but would that be right?

Without getting too deep into the pros/cons of socialism/capitalism-

[float]

wow

Gay REDNECKS......run

I think the gay community has enough problems

without being associated with those jerkoffs

funny picture though

[Paint it Black]

One of the most basic flaws of democracy is that not all groups of people are represented equally. Democracy, in and of it's self, is only selfishness, not freedom. People, therefore, have a responsibility to look after lesser fragments of the population in such a setting.

I will paraphrase the great Kent Brockman "I've said it before and I'll say it again, Democracy simply does not work."

Certain things that are only symbols of hate are obviously opressive if a government or a majority group gives them sponsorship.

I respectfully disagree. The Confederate flag (The Confederate Battle Flag) means much more than slavery and oppression. It means many things, such as a people's fight for independence, anti-Federalism, Southern heritage, family pride. The vast majority of Southerns who died in the war didn't even own slaves. They fought to defend their home from invasion. PLain and simple.

I'm saying that the flag is not valid any more for official use. The south lost.

The South did indeed lose, but it remains part of the UNion and the constitution applies there still. Southerners are not second class citizens because they fought for their freedom and lost. They and their state governments still maintain their rights to Free Speech and their gov't still maintain as much sovereignty as any other state from the federal gov't.

It is not the job of the federal gov't to dictate to a state or its voters what is on its flag. That is for the residents of the states to decide.

The American flag was flown over both the north and the south while the slave trade was in "full bore" in both areas, however, the north later went to war to end that,

Again, the 'holier than thou' theory of northern supremecy rears it's ugly head. The North had more than its fair share of bigotry which still exists today. The North did not fight to free slaves.

If they were fighting to free the slaves then how come slavery remained legal in Union states such as Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland until after the war?

The answer is because they could not do it. There was no legal way to do it until they subjugated the South and basically blackmailed them into ratifying the constitution.

The North and President Lincoln used slavery as a propaganda tool to 'undermine the insurgency.' And it worked brilliantly.

Was the civil war a fight based on slavery? Certainly it was the main issue which drove the two sides apart. But was slavery the issue because of some precieved moral superiority of the northerners and a basic evil of southerners? No. It was a political issue and an economic issue first and foremost. I am of the opinion that abolishing slavery was more of a means to an end of the war than a it was a means for the war itself.

Now don't get me wrong, I do believe that Lincoln himself was somewhat of an abolishionist in his morality. However, Lincoln was a great politician, probably among the best this nation has ever produced. Which would explain some of his words spoken before and during the conflict.

I find it extremely ironic when I see pictures of Ole Abe in the homes of black folks or in black churches. Especially when compared to some of Lincolns political rhetoric. Lincoln once floated the idea of sending all the freed black people back to Africa, Liberia to be exact and actually many of them went there. Lincoln said many times that he believed the black man to inferior to the white man. Lincoln once said that his intentions to muster troops for the war was based on preserving the Union and that if he could preserve the Union and free the slaves he would, if he could preserve the Union and not free the slaves, he would, if he could preserve the union and leave some in bondage while freeing some he would. But his sole mission was to preserve the Union.

the stars and stripes became a symbol of freedom while a new symbol was created as a battle standard for an area that was against that principal.

Again I respectfully disagree with you. The 'new symbol' was, for those who created it, as much of a symbol of freedom and self-determination as the Union standard was. The problem here is putting 20th century morality onto 19th century thought. We are talking about people who were born and raised with an inherent feeling of racial superiority. They learned it at home, in school and in church. Yet most of them didn't own slaves themselves. Something like 80% of all slaves in the south were owned by 10 or 15% of the population, basically the uberplanters. Men who owned numberous plantations and thousands of slaves.

To me, that flag represents a myriad of things, but namely it represents those poor Southern crackers who fought and bled and died to defend their home. To defend their families and to defend their way of life. I ask you, what is more American than that?

I liken the Unions rally cry to war with our current administrations reasoning for fighting and occupying Iraq. George Bush says its to deliver freedom to the oppressed Iraqis from the hands of a brutal despot named Saddam Hussein. So we dump 5 billion dollars a month into Iraq to free the Iraqis. Tax payer money and American blood is spent in Bush's 'noble crusade.' But then you have Bush's powerbase, the super rich who funded his campaigns, these people are making billions off of this war and stand to make countless billions more when the American puppet government funnels oil wealth to their greedy pockets.

Much the same thing happened when the North broke the South's will to fight. Many northerns died while a few northerns got rich on the aftermath when they bought up all the land and then paid the newly freed black people 'slave wages' to work it for them. Sure they were free, but they exchanged iron chains for financial chains. They were still living terrible lives doing backbreaking work, getting no educations, for the most part and having to deal with an increasingly hostile indigenous white population. Reconstruction was a joke, it simply meant that northern white guys got rich at the expense of poor southern blacks and whites.

If native Americans felt the same about the stars and stripes it'd be no different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you doubt many of them don't? The difference is we made the Indians harder to see because so many of them perished through war, disease and displacement. Then we confined them to 'reservations.' While the black population was ghettoized (word?). So we don't hear to much from the Indians, we load them up with the drug of choice at the time, liqour, keep them in a drunken stupor so that they really don't bitch to much.

What did we do with the black populations? Siphon hardcore drugs and guns into their neighborhoods so they can turn themselves into zombies and kill each other or commit crimes and get locked up at astronomical rates.

Some freedom, eh? It took the Federal Gov't around 100 years after the end of the war to actually give blacks equal rights throughout the land. Why did it take so long? Because they didn't give a shit. They didn't start giving a shit until it started to make them look bad.

The way that blacks and reds and whatevers have been treated in this country is the blame of us all. It's not a north or south thing, that is only a matter of degrees. The US government has consistently f*cked over minorities for the vast majority of this nations history.

Can't blame all that on one flag.

Of course, this is all my most humble opinion and I certainly respect your opinion. For all the troubles this country has and its blood stained history I still would not want to live anywhere else and I do believe we are still the world "last great hope."

The unfortunant thing is that the reality of America often falls way short of the ideal of America.

[Paper Hearts]

"I respectfully disagree. The Confederate flag (The Confederate Battle Flag) means much more than slavery and oppression. It means many things, such as a people's fight for independence, anti-Federalism, Southern heritage, family pride. The vast majority of Southerns who died in the war didn't even own slaves. They fought to defend their home from invasion. PLain and simple."

That's touching, but the war, it is well known, besides being fought to hold together the union, was also a war to end slavery. The seperation that occurred, happened because of slavery.

"The South did indeed lose, but it remains part of the UNion and the constitution applies there still. Southerners are not second class citizens because they fought for their freedom and lost. They and their state governments still maintain their rights to Free Speech and their gov't still maintain as much sovereignty as any other state from the federal gov't."

Individuals can fly the stars and bars, by the constitution, privately but a government place, can not. A ruling class does not reserve the right to offend 25% of it's citenzenry. Just because you have greater numbers, does not make you right.

"It is not the job of the federal gov't to dictate to a state or its voters what is on its flag. That is for the residents of the states to decide.

Again, the 'holier than thou' theory of northern supremecy rears it's ugly head. The North had more than its fair share of bigotry which still exists today. The North did not fight to free slaves. "

The state government has the responsibility to make sure that all of it's citezens are represented, and all 50 states have a responsibility to the federal government.

"If they were fighting to free the slaves then how come slavery remained legal in Union states such as Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland until after the war?"

Many battles were fought in those states just because of that. Missouri was particularly trecherous.

"The North and President Lincoln used slavery as a propaganda tool to 'undermine the insurgency.' And it worked brilliantly. "

Lincoln was more concerned with keeping the union together, regardless of the outcome of the slavery issue, however we still have a responsibility to act with the best regards of all in mind.

"To me, that flag represents a myriad of things, but namely it represents those poor Southern crackers who fought and bled and died to defend their home. To defend their families and to defend their way of life. I ask you, what is more American than that?"

I can't get into the nationalism thing, but I will say that the stars and bars is no symbol for those people then, because the stars and bars symbolised something entirely different: opression. it still symbolises that today. It's not a apt representation of honest peoples who were effected by the war, unjustifyingly, although it may be easily confusable.

"What did we do with the black populations? Siphon hardcore drugs and guns into their neighborhoods so they can turn themselves into zombies and kill each other or commit crimes and get locked up at astronomical rates.

Some freedom, eh? It took the Federal Gov't around 100 years after the end of the war to actually give blacks equal rights throughout the land. Why did it take so long? Because they didn't give a shit. They didn't start giving a shit until it started to make them look bad.

The way that blacks and reds and whatevers have been treated in this country is the blame of us all. It's not a north or south thing, that is only a matter of degrees. The US government has consistently f*cked over minorities for the vast majority of this nations history."

But the trend has been, under the currant stadard, a migration towards civility which is the difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Paint it Black]

That's touching, but the war, it is well known, besides being fought to hold together the union, was also a war to end slavery. The seperation that occurred, happened because of slavery.

The invasion of the south was persecuted to preserve the Union. Slavery did not become the North's cause until 1862. Dont forget who invaded who.

The south seceeded to defend what they viewed as their rights, what was legal under the laws of the United States Constitution at the time.

"Individuals can fly the stars and bars, by the constitution, privately but a government place, can not."

Please show me the constitutional amendment which says that a state cannot fly the "stars and bars" The stars and bars being either the first confederate national flag or the conferderate battle flag or any confederate flag.

"A ruling class does not reserve the right to offend 25% of it's citenzenry. Just because you have greater numbers, does not make you right."

Really? We are talking about rights now, which has to do with law. So please show me the law which says that 75% does not have the right to 'offenend the other 25%. Talking law, not morality.

"The state government has the responsibility to make sure that all of it's citezens are represented, and all 50 states have a responsibility to the federal government."

So a state cannot decide on a flag unless all of its citizens agree?

"Many battles were fought in those states just because of that. Missouri was particularly trecherous."

Many battles were fought to determine the outcome of the war. But those battles were not fought to end slavery. They were fought to determine the whether the South had a right to decide its own future. Whether states could decide the slavery issue on its own or with federal interference.

"Lincoln was more concerned with keeping the union together, regardless of the outcome of the slavery issue, however we still have a responsibility to act with the best regards of all in mind."

Huh?

"I can't get into the nationalism thing, but I will say that the stars and bars is no symbol for those people then, because the stars and bars symbolised something entirely different: opression. it still symbolises that today. It's not a apt representation of honest peoples who were effected by the war, unjustifyingly, although it may be easily confusable."

Who are you to say how those people are to be represented?

"But the trend has been, under the currant stadard, a migration towards civility which is the difference."

If you say so...

Don't know what country you are living in.

[Goth Brooks]

The invasion of the south was persecuted to preserve the Union. Slavery did not become the North's cause until 1862. Dont forget who invaded who.

As I recall, Sumter did not fire first. Not to get too far off the subject, but you do seem to be implying that it was the Union that started the war.

[Paint it Black]

As I recall, Sumter did not fire first.  Not to get too far off the subject, but you do seem to be implying that it was the Union that started the war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When South Carolin left the Union, like other states it re-took control of all federal facilities in their state. Ft. Sumter, however, bring on an island and defending Charleston's harbour was harder to get.

The Feds obviously refused to peacefully hand back the Fort to the CS authorities.

So it was placed under seige. The Federals were warned that any attempt to relieve the island Fort would be considered an act of aggression and call for war. Lincoln called the Southern bluff and then 600,000 Americans died in the aftermath.

[Goth Brooks]

When South Carolin left the Union, like other states it re-took control of all federal facilities in their state. Ft. Sumter, however, bring on an island and defending Charleston's harbour was harder to get.

The Feds obviously refused to peacefully hand back the Fort to the CS authorities.

So it was placed under seige. The Federals were warned that any attempt to relieve the island Fort would be considered an act of aggression and call for war. Lincoln called the Southern bluff and then 600,000 Americans died in the aftermath.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except, in the case of Ft Sumter, it belonged part and parcel to the Federal government.

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

        "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

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

There is absolutely no reason to believe that that law would be repealed just because they decided to start a new government, otherwise each and every single law in the CS would have been null and void.

Let's not forget the fact that it was less than 5 months from the day SC seceded to the firing on the fort, even nowadays, that's not a long time for any sort of negotiations between countries, back then it was a new york minute.

The "legality" of the secessions not withstanding, the Union had every right to reinforce and defend it's territory, and Sumter was without a doubt, US Federal government property.

[Scary Guy]

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

The United States has launched all of its major armed conflicts since World War II as police actions. In these events, Congress had not made a formal declaration of war, yet the President, as the commander-in-chief, has claimed authority to send in the armed forces when he deemed necessary. Nonetheless, limited Congressional control has been asserted, in terms of funding appropriations.

Not that you should believe everything you read on the net. If anyone has a better source of information then please post it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_o...e_United_States

Even more info on the subject.

[Vater Araignee]

Vietnam wasn't a war, it was a "military action".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its classified as a war now, but thats only so the vets can get war benefits.

Whether it was a War or not is not an important distinction here, thing is, we fought and we lost.  Are we still proud of our men/boys and our stars and stripes??

Yes! why must there be shame in losing or conceding a losing battle?  It saves lives from being wasted on futility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually if I'm remembering correctly ( and I am ) we went to Vietnam to help the French so it was not us that lost but them.

Daddy was a vet.

[Paint it Black]

Except, in the case of Ft Sumter, it belonged part and parcel to the Federal government.

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

There is absolutely no reason to believe that that law would be repealed just because they decided to start a new government, otherwise each and every single law in the CS would have been null and void.

The US gave over many other installations prior to the Ft. Sumter crisis.

Arguments of legality of ownership aside (and they are good ones, mind you) the point is that Ft. Sumter was invaluable to the defense of Charleston's harbor and Charleson itself. The unwillingness to hand it over tipped the Federal hand that their was going to be war. Lincoln had no ideas of negotiating with the Confederates.

Let's not forget the fact that it was less than 5 months from the day SC seceded to the firing on the fort, even nowadays, that's not a long time for any sort of negotiations between countries, back then it was a new york minute.

There would be no negotiations, even though many in Lincolns own cabinet were not prepared to go to war over the fort.

There was some attempt at negotiation from the confederate side and members of the cabinet, like Seward. One idea was that the Union would be given free use of the southern part of the Mississippi river in exchange for the surrender of the fort. This would be followed by more talks on how the two countries might better work together to resolve differences.

As I said before, Lincoln was not going to negotiate as he thought negotiation gave legitimace to the southern rebellion and the confederacy it birthed.

The "legality" of the secessions not withstanding, the Union had every right to reinforce and defend it's territory, and Sumter was without a doubt, US Federal government property.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is doubt. If SC could not take the fort back since it was Union territory, it most certainly did not give up its territorial waters, which the Union ships would have to transverse if they were to reinforce the fort. This would be in violation of the borders of the newlyfound Republic of South Carolina and CSA, especially when done by military ships of a hostile government.

[Paint it Black]

Actually if I'm remembering correctly ( and I am ) we went to Vietnam to help the French so it was not us that lost but them.

Daddy was a vet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The French had quit Vietnam 8 years or so before the first large scale US troops deployments.

Although the US did have a strong political presence in Vietnam since the French war there and especially after the French bowed out, we did not go to Vietnam to "help the French" if by 'go to Vietnam' you mean deploy hundreds of thousands of troops there.

We went there to insure the stability and integrity of the South Vietnamese government, defeat the Ho Chi Minh inspired insurgency and block the spread of communism.

-V

(and make a lot of people rich off of arms production.)