Is the Conferate flag racist or not? Should it be banned?

[Mike 03]

Is this a symbol that should be done away with, or does it have other meanings that are not racist and should be accepted as a legitimate expression of rebellion, rather than particularized to race.

Link to story:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522203,00.html

By the way, I am a member of the NAACP and ACLU. But I also spent a lot of time in Atlanta when I was working on a film and had a difference sense of what the flag meant to the people I met there.

On the other hand, one of my best friends in the world thinks the flag is racist, and I find it very hard to disregard his opinion.

Perception is reality.

[seabeyond]

1. yes it is racist.... that is the intent. people like to come up with other

reasons for it, but every single one of them i see in texas is for the sole purpose of offending.

and no not legally ban, the people should oppose to such an extent that it isnt wanted

[Dagaz]

87. Texas?

I always believed it was a symbol of the South but I don't think Texas was a Confederate state. I'd have to say if it's not in one of the CSA states then it's being flown as a racist flag. In South Carolina I'm open to opinion. when I saw it on Cops in Indiana I totally saw it as racist.

[Zomby Woof]

97. Texas was indeed in the CSA

[FLAprogressive]

2. Yes it is racist, no it should not be banned.

[Mudoria]

3. No it's not racist.... some, amybe many people using it today are racists no doubt

My ancestors fought under that flag

[BlooInBloo]

5. "My ancestors fought under that flag" - I'm sorry.

[Mudoria]

6. I'm not

[BlooInBloo]

7. (shrug) I'm sorry you're not, as well then.

[Yupster]

17. I'm from Texas

The voters of my state voted to leave the Union and join the Confederacy by a vote of 5 to 1.

It wasn't that big a deal to them at the time.

They had only voted to join the USA 13 years earlier.

They hardly expected to be conquered militarily because of the decision of their voters. The way they looked at it they voted to join the USA and voted to leave it? Why should that cause the death of 25 % of the adult white males in the south?

[BlooInBloo]

21. Good thing those peace-loving southerners didn't start it, and weren't firing back...

Else your comments would be the fucking stupidest ever.

[Yupster]

39. Rather not get into a long discussion of the start of the Civil War

The Crittenden Committee and all that. There's no point to it.

This old history teacher and textbook author is tired of fighting the same battle over and over.

I'll just leave it at the people of my home state voted by popular vote to join the USA and then 13 years later voted by popular vote to leave the USA.

They thought they had that right. President Lincoln showed them they didn't by grounding them to dust over four years of battlefields. Though 75 % of adult men in the south donned Confederate uniforms and 25 % of them died and another 25 % were wounded, they could still not defend their independance, so they lost it.

[Alcibiades]

79. In my home state

the people voted down secession every time it was put to them--North Carolina was seceded by act of fiat. The war destroyed the south, and laid the groundwork for a racist ideology that is the linchpin--ironically--of the Republican Party today.

Secession was a horrible idea. When I see the battle flag, the Stars and Bars, or any symbol of the lost cause, I think that that person must be a complete and total idiot. The message is not about "heritage" or anything else: it's the same as it's always been, that the South will rise again. The belief in such a thing can only be predicated on complete and utter ignorance of history.



The C is for "CRAAAZY!"

[Yupster]

82. When did North Carolina vote on secession?

I never heard they voted on it one way or the other.

They were of course the last state to secede. On May 1, 1861 the legislature asked each county to elect representatives to a secession convention which they did. At the secession convention the delegates voted to secede.

I had never heard of a popular vote for or against secession in N Carolina one way or the other. Was there one?

[Alcibiades]

88. February 28, 1861

It was close. The legislature had to call a secession convention in May because the voters had already refused to do so in February. Technically, voters voted not to have a secession convention, which was the same thing as voting against secession. At the secession convention convened by the state legislature, they specifically decided NOT to put the question to a popular vote again.

North Carolina suffered more deaths than any other state in the CSA. 40,000 out of 125,000 who served, more than any other Confederate state, died to preserve the way of life of rich Virginia and South Carolina planters.

[Yupster]

91. Interesting

Tennessee also narrowly voted down a secession convention, but then after Sumter had another vote and overwhelmingly approved one. The difference was they were forced to choose sides since Lincoln had called for troops from Tennessee after Fort Sumter.

There are funny telegrams that governors sent to Lincoln when he called forth the militia. The Constitution gives that power to the congress.

One governor wrote Lincoln a telegram telling him that some damn fool was issuing unconstitutional orders in his name and he better find out who it is or people will start thinking you're (Lincoln's) doing it.

Some other funny ones too but I can't remember them.

[marshall]

115. It's true that the war was more than merely a black/white issue

In more ways than one.

[Yupster]

43. Oh yeah

Well your post is icky and stupid and gross too.

Sure showed you.

[Occam Bandage]

32. "They hardly expected to be conquered militarily"

Then they probably shouldn't have started a war.

[Yupster]

42. Look at it from the time of 1860

When they looked at the wars they've had they had no reason to believe they'd be ground down.

The wars they could look at - the French and Indian War, the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War were wars with relatively few deaths. A few short battles and a negotiated peace, even if it took a lot of calendar time.

Also, they looked at history and saw that if a country was willing and able to defend itself, it was difficult if not impossible to conquer a large landmass like the Confederacy. Mapolean's Russian debacle was only 40 years before that after all.

All they expected was a few shart battles if that, followed by a negotiated peace. Looking at it from their time period, it was a reasonable expectation.

They hadn't realized how technology had changed the equation especially in provisioning large armies for long times. That was the hard part. You could get an army to occupy a far away territory but you couldn't keep it provisioned for long periods of time. The Civil War northern armies could mostly because of railroads and longer keeping food.

Also something not given enough credit is Lincoln's ability to keep the north fighting. The north had many reverses and many opportunities to say the heck with it. Lincoln showed an amazing ability to keep the north's morale up. I think it was a pretty near thing a couple of times. The draft riots of 1863 could have been a lot worse, especially when they started just a few days after Gettysburg. A Confederate victory at Gettysburg could have made the draft riots a game ender.

Lincoln should get a lot of credit for this because it is not easy to keep a country fighting a long war when the other side is saying, just leave us alone. We don't want anything from you. We can have peace. Just go home.

[Occam Bandage]

52. They were well aware that Lincoln was a fanatic. They seceded in large part because of that,

and to read the papers of the time there was no limit to their fears of what he would do to them. Of course, it is perhaps notable that for one of the few times in history the propaganda was more prophetic than hysterical, but they ought not have been taken by surprise that Lincoln would be willing to pursue the war even if it meant he would be dragged out of the White House by an angry mob. Still, I suppose we can't blame entire societies for failing to see what is obvious in retrospect.

They of course did not anticipate the affect of the railroad on logistics, nor did they expect the war to expand as widely as it did. However, I stand by my somewhat facetious statement, inasmuch as the Confederacy was just as willing to expand the war as the Union was. Sibley's New Mexico Campaign represented the Westernmost reach of the Civil War. Polk's invasion of Kentucky resulted in that state aligning itself with the Federals for the remainder of that war. Lee's two failed attempts to launch offensives were not only strategically idiotic, they effectively ceded the "we just want to be let alone" argument.

The Confederacy successfully used guerrillas and terrain warfare in the Trans-Mississippi (to considerable success), but in the principal theaters they chose a war of sieges, pitched battles, and invasion attempts. Had they simply allowed Richmond to fall, and had they relied on a guerrilla strategy centered around the comparative lack of railroads in the South, around their ability to march armies more quickly along rough terrain, and around their vastly superior cavalry, the South would have been unbeatable. Indeed, it was not the loss of Richmond and Vicksburg that killed the Confederacy; it was their attempts to resist Grant by indulging in his desire to butcher men that killed the Confederacy. Had they simply melted away from him, and only fought him when they could surprise him (such as at the Wilderness), they could have fought a war without end. Had they been as willing to live off the land as Grant was at Vicksburg, they needn't ever have stopped fighting.

But they chose a war of pitched battles and grand charges. The Confederacy cannot be excused from the final death tolls when their generals believed the way to win the war was to fight as if they were Napoleon, and not as if they were Barclay.

[Yupster]

84. Defending Richmond was certainly a handicap

and letting it go was probably the better thing to do.

I think more important to the Confederates than the seat of government though was Tredegar Iron Works which the Confederacy thought they needed to keep amn army in the field.

I think looking back at it, you are no doubt right that they would have ben better to let it fall in 1862 rather than suffer all the casualties defending it. It also tied down the south's best divisions in defense when they could have been making more trouble attacking weak spots elsewhere.

[Yupster]

86. I wanted to discuss the decision to invade Pennsylvania

for a minute.

The decision was not lightly taken but thoroughly discussed.

The problem was Grant was surrounding 30,000 Confederates in Vicksburg and the question was how to lift that siege.

Three choices were discussed.

1. Send a corps of Lee's army to Johnston in Jackson to lift the siege.
2. Send a corps of Lee's army to Chatanooga to join Bragg's army to attack towards Nashville and beyond cutting Grant's supply lines and forcing him to give up the siege to defend the north.
3. Reinforce Lee and let him invade the north to win a decisive victory and end the war.

The first option was eliminated because there wasn't a good way to get a corps there in enough time to influence the battle.

In the end Davis went with Lee's idea for the victory. The Confederate Secretary of State went with ANV to present himself for diplomatic purposes once the victory was won and Baltimore or Washington or Harrisburg were taken. Check out a map. Lee actually took York, Pennsylvania in the campaign.

Anyway, the question has been asked why did Lee keep trying for a decisive victory long after it was possible at Gettysburg and I think the purpose of the campaign explains it. Lee knew that when he took his army north he was giving up the army in Vicksburg. He had to win a decisive win up north. He had to. So he kept attacking long after it made any sense. Longstreet's advice was right, but it wouldn't lead to decisive, and that's what he knew his country needed.

[Occam Bandage]

135. I disagree that "decisive" was necessary to end the war.

In fact, I think it was Lee's preoccupation with achieving decisive victories that lost it. The South never had the manpower or the industrial capacity for a stand-up fistfight. The Federals realized the importance of wearing down the enemy, resulting in their successful Anaconda strategy. As tactically moronic as the Union could be, they at least figured out that the war would be won not on any particular battlefield, but by ending the Confederate ability to resist.

The Confederates, on the other hand, seemed wedded to their Napoleonic textbooks; through the entire war, they acted as if their paramount objectives were the defense of Richmond and the capture of Washington, and treated the Western theater as a necessary distraction. They might well have won with this strategy, but it would have been a victory in spite of their means and not because of them. It is undeniable that the Confederates were far better at reconnaissance, maneuver, and tactics, and they won quite a few victories over lesser generals. But every battle they fought, win or lose, brought them closer to defeat, for they couldn't afford to replace the officers, men, and artillery they had lost. And no general, no matter how good, can win every single battle; by engaging the Union army, they still allowed the Union occasional victories/stalemates (such as Antietam) that kept up Union morale.

He should have fallen back and engaged in a campaign of harassment. He could march faster, he had better information, he had a friendly local population, he knew the terrain better, and his cavalry could cover twice the ground and fight twice as well as the Union cavalry could. You couldn't ask for a better situation for a guerrilla war. It wasn't necessary to get a decisive win; all that was necessary was to ensure that the Federals never had a decisive win over the Confederates.

[MadHound]

69. Oh please, for a self proclaimed historian and author, you sure don't know your history very well

While there was a lot of hype and hoopla on the part of the South at the time, the leaders, people like Davis and Lee knew perfectly well that they could and probably would be ground to dust. They knew that they didn't have the industrial capacity, the miles of rail or the population to deal with a long drawn out war, and that their only hope was to achieve a quick victory. When that didn't happen then it was simply a matter of time.

[Occam Bandage]

78. The Confederacy had several chances to win the war.

Not to get too deeply into alternate history or Civil War minutiae, but had Bragg been just a bit more wary while digging in to besiege the Federal army that had retreated to Chattanooga, then he wouldn't have accidentally placed his rifle pits too high up Missionary Ridge to cover the base of the slope, meaning the haphazard (and entirely accidental) Union advance up Missionary Ridge would have failed (as it really should have), meaning Bragg's army would have remained intact and a third of the Union army would have routed, meaning the siege would have continued, meaning Tennessee would have remained contested, meaning Sherman couldn't have launched his Atlanta campaign, meaning Atlanta would not have been captured until after the election (if at all), meaning Lincoln would have lost his bid for re-election, meaning President McClellan would most likely have held peace talks with President Davis in early 1865.

Or had Lee's reckless gambles that culminated in Antietam and Gettysburg actually paid off--if, say, McClellan hadn't intercepted Lee's plans by accident, or if Jeb Stuart hadn't arrived a day late to Gettysburg, then Lee might have been able to pull out a major win in either battle, opening the road to Washington.

A Confederate victory through traditional warfare was not impossible by any means. It wasn't very likely, but it wasn't impossible. And beyond that, I remain convinced that if they had adopted an asymmetrical strategy, they would have won assuredly.

[Yupster]

81. I don't agree with that at all

Even at the time there was a debate whether the south's best chance was in a quick taking of Washington, or a long defensive war where the other side eventually gets tired and goes home.

The quick victory was pushed hardest by Stonewall Jackson who always wanted to push the battle to the north with offensives. Very quickly the idea of taking Washington was out of the question as the rings of defenses were impregnable.

I also don't agree that it was just a mater of time. I think there were real possibilities that the US would say forget it, it's not worth the cost.

There were real fissures in the north - a very strong anti-war movement. In another post I mentioned the anti-draft riots of July 1863. Read up on them if you're interested. They were very serious with hundreds dead. Interestingly they can right after the union victory at Gettysburg and were put down in part by troops from Gettysburg. What if te ANV won at Gettysburg? Could te draft riots have spread and led to an end of the war? I think it's possible.

Another interesting time period is the early spring of 1864. This was believe it or not an optimistic time throughout the Confederacy. From February to April there were victories reported in Olustee Florida, Okolona Mississippi, Dalton Georgia, the Red River Campaign was defeated in Mansfield Louisiana, the Fort Pillow Massacre in Tennessee was reported as a great Confederate victory and in North Carolina the federal coastal garrison at Plymouth surrendered completely.

These all look like very small victories today because soon Sherman would march on ATlanta and Grant would head for Richmond, but at the time they were seen as important. Important enough for Lincoln to tell his cabinet that he would likely lose the election in November.

So I don't think a long drawn out war was seen hopeless. It looks that way from 2009 but in the spring of 1864 the south was optimistic. The north held territory, but really not that much. Lee's ANV was in good shape and Johnston's AT was in the best shape it probably ever was. Only one state capital was occupied and there was real hope that a Lincoln election loss would lead to a ngotiated peace.

Then Atlanta fell and it was all different.

Oh the what ifs of history.

What if Johnston was reassigned to his old command of the ANV when he was fit for command again to defend against Grant and Lee was sent out west to confront Sherman in the mountains of northern Georgia. An interesting what if which as discussed at the time.

[bbinacan]

23. I agree

My great grandfather fought for the South. Check this I'm 45, yet I have a great grandfather that fought. He was born in 1842 and my grandma was born in 1903. My Mom was born when her Mom was 40. My family never owned slaves and that is not why my great grandfather fought.

[Bluebear]

My mother lived under Hitler, but I don't fly the swastika outside my door.

Just sayin'.

[BlooInBloo]

+1

[obliviously]

27. What town in germany was she from?

I bet she has some stories to tell!

[Bluebear]

51. Hamburg and yes!

[obliviously]

56. Sorry to take you off topic

but does she live here or is she still in Germany?

[Bluebear]

60. She has passed on now...

but came to the States as a war bride in the 50's

[obliviously]

61. I am sorry to hear

that. I hope her life over here was good for her.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. Aw, but it's heritage, not hate!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

145. ...

:applause:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Were they in the Army of Northern Virginia?

If so, you are correct. If not, I doubt that they fought under it. (Clayborn's battle flag from Arkansas was a blue ball on a white field, if memory serves.)

[Occam Bandage]

30. Your ancestors were fighting to retain the right to own humans.

Spare me the revisionist Lost Cause bullshit. Slavery was the primary cause of the civil war, and was the primary motivation for those who fought.

"States' Rights?" Bullshit. Slavery was the only "State's Right" that was under Federal attack, and it was fear that Lincoln would move to ban slavery that caused the South to secede. Several states mentioned slavery explicitly in their proclamations of secession. Slavery was the driving force behind the decades of armed conflict that predated the Civil War, from Kansas to Harper's Ferry.

Your ancestors were fighting to create an America in which the right of white men to own black men could be protected forevermore. Your ancestors who fought under that flag were fighting for one of the worst causes man has ever envisioned.

[MadHound]

68. Well, whether your ancestors were racists or not, we'll never know,

However given that the vast majority of people in the Confederacy were racist at that time, they probably were.

But what we do know is that they were traitors to their country. Don't you feel proud.

[Rebubula]

111. Revisionist history

"However given that the vast majority of people in the Confederacy were racist at that time"

You do realize that the North was just as racist and black people (as well as many others) were oppressed and abused without legal recourse? It is not like black folk lived wonderful lives in NYC during the same time period.

The vast majority of America was racist at the time...

[MadHound]

118. Well d'uh, but then again we weren't speaking about the North,

The poster was recounting their family's Confederate history. Yes, the vast majority of America was racist at the time, but it was those states in the Confederacy who decided to take up arms against their country and thus commit treason. What is revisionist about that?

[Hugabear]

77. So did some of mine. Doesn't change anything.

I'm not responsible for anything my ancestors did, and neither are you. Just because some of my ancestors fought for a traitorous movement to preserve slavery doesn't mean that I embrace what they did.

[Greyhound]

93. So, your ancestors were traitors, what difference does that make?

Personally, I thing fighting the war was a huge mistake. Lincoln should have let them go, but that's a whole other topic.

[BlooInBloo]

4. Yes. No.

EDIT: The only banning that's reasonable would be a general ban on flying the banner of another country.

[Yupster]

9. But the US never recognized the CSA as another country

If it had, then the invasion of the south would have been an illegal invasion of a neighboring country.

[BlooInBloo]

11. They fired on us, tiger.

[Yupster]

50. Yes - Fort Sumpter turned out to be a blunder

You know at the time it was considered brilliant.

The result of it was causing Lincoln to overreact and more than doubling the population of the Confederate States. Ultimately it turned out to be a blunder though. At the time of the Montgomery convention it was a hard decision and President Davis wavered back and forth.

It's funny because no one was killed in the firing on the fort and yet it had incredible results.

THe first result was that President Lincoln called forth the militia (unconstitutionally) and called for each state to provide troops to invade the south.

At the time the Confederacy had just seven states - S Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. The nation had almost no military or potential. There were eight other slave states who had chosen not to secede.

They were Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, N Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri and Arkansas. The most importnat by far was Virginia (only large steel mill in the south), followed by the large population states of N Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky.

Tennessee had just voted whether to call a secession convention and had barely voted no.

When President Lincoln called for troops from each state to invade the south those eight states had to choose sides. Tennessee immediately called another vote and overwhelmingly voted to join the south. Virginia and N Carolina (lost the most men of any state) joined the CSA. Arkansas probably would have regardless. Maryland would have but its legislators were arrested. Kentucky and Missouri had representatives in both countries congresses throughout the war.

All the sudden the CSA was up to 11 states and it had formidable military potential. With Tennessee, Virginia and N Carolina came population enough to field actual armies.

Virginia brought a tremendous wealth of experienced military leaders like R E Lee, Stonewall Jackson and JEB Stuart.

So the decision to firew on Fort Sumpter was seen as a brilliant move in the short term. Long term nope. It allowed Lincoln to mobilize the country behind the war. Maybe he could have anyway? Who knows. Anyway, it would have been more difficult to attack the seven state CSA through neutral Virginia and N Carolina, but then again, without the four new states the south wouldn't been able to field any kind f armies.

Who knows? The what ifs of history?

[BlooInBloo]

57. "at the time it was considered brilliant." - Famous last words.

[Yupster]

63. Kinda similar to the easy time we

had getting to Baghdad. That was brilliant too.

I really do sympathize for Jefferson Davis' position at the time. It's easy to criticize since we know how it came out. The convention chose him president over the three guys who were in Montgomery running. He had to pass through the USA to get from Vicksburg to Montgomery by train because there wasn't a line that stayed within the borders of the CSA.

He was trying to form a government, they were there trying to write a Constitution, trying to convince more states to leave, outfit an army and a navy, and meanwhile there was an angry mob at a besieged fort in S Carolina. And all this trying to form a central government from a nation with the basic idea of powerful state governments and a weak federal government.

Overall he didn't do a bad job though he made many mistakes, attacking Fort Sumter being one of the biggest. I don't think I could have done any better. I don't know if anyone could have.

Lincoln certainly made his mistakes too. He just had a much greater margin of error. I think if you put Lincoln as head of the CSA and Davis as head of the USA, the USA still wins. Who knows?

[BlooInBloo]

64. "I really do sympathize for Jefferson Davis' position at the time." - 'nuff said.

[Occam Bandage]

65. Davis, it must also be remembered, did not have a cooperative government.

He was paralyzed frequently by a fractured and petty legislature, and by state governments eager to assert their much-beloved "States' Rights." A Federal government is much better at handling crises than a Confederate one is. Demonstrated by the responses to Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, and demonstrated by the Civil War.

[Yupster]

72. Yes - a very difficult situation

And a very interesting life. At 13 his parents put him on a passing wagon train to drop him off at Transylvania College in Kentucky.

He never wanted to be CSA President. He graduated West Point and was Secretary of War. He wanted and expected to get a significant army command.

President was much tougher. He tried to form and operate a government under the difficult situation you described. I think he did about as well as anyone could.

He had to deal with an army fighting during the winter in rags while GOvernor Vance kept back 100,000 uniforms in North Carolina and do it while doing his best to keep the ideas of states rights alive.

He also had a Vice-president who was against secession.

His an interesing person to read about. It's been a while, but his autobiography and letters are full of the phrase, "I did my duty as best I saw it." I think he did - he truly did the best he could under very difficult circumstances.

[Occam Bandage]

74. I think he performed his job as well as anyone could have, but I hardly think he did his duty.

Treason is the abdication of duty, and not its fulfillment.

[Yupster]

85. Treason is completely unfair

At the end of the war Davis was arrested and charged with treason.

He demanded his trial. He hired a New York law firm of abolitionist attorneys and prepared to defend himself.

His defene was simple. Secssion was legal and Constitutional. When his state seceeded he became a citizen of the Confederate States and therefore could hardly be tried as a traitor to the USA.

I used to know a lot about the trial preparation and all. There are lots of documents extant about it, but it's been years since I've looked at it.

The main point though is that the government once indicting Davis kept delaying his trial date. While he kept demanding the start of his trial, they kept asking for and getting delays.

Eventually the government allowed Davis to be bailed out of jail by wealthy northerners (Cornelius Vanderbilt and Horace Greeley) if I'm remembering correctly. The problem was that the issue was not at all clear and the possible damage of losing the case was much more important than the gains of convicting Davis. So the Johnson government kept punting the trial down the calendar. Incidently, Davis and Johnson hated each other so the trial was not put off for any love of Davis. In fact when Lincoln was killed, Davis said it would be a disaster for the southern people because he had such a low opinion of Johnson.

Anyway, the government eventually postponed the trial indefinitly but left Davis indicted.

To me that was a really crappy thing to do. Imagine being indicted for child molestation. You feel you are innocent and tell evryone you look forward to your trial to prove your innocence. Then the government never tries you, but leaves you permanently indicted and continues to call you a child molestator.

How unfair would it be for people to call you a child molestor?

The government had Davis indicted, imprisoned, and they refused to try him though he wanted the trial. I don't think it's fair for us to call him a traitor 100 years later. If the government thought they could have proven it, they would have tried him. We shouldn't proclaim him guilty when he was refused his trial.

I hope you see that.

[Zomby Woof]

101. President Carter restored Davis's citizenship in 1977

Which formally absolved him of any and all charges of being a "traitor", as it was.

[Yupster]

102. Interesting

Thanks for that.

[datasuspect]

8. perception conditions reality

it is a filter through which we interpret phenomena.

[Thickasabrick]

10. Some people think it is, some people do not. So no, it should not

be banned just to appease one side.

[NYC_SKP]

12. Many will disagree with me.

Eliminating what (to some) are symbols of racism will do nothing to eliminate racism in people's hearts and minds.

It's symbolism as a racist symbol is in the eye of the beholder.

Just like the tradition of laying the wreath at the Confederate Soldiers memorial seems not to have been a problem in the end,
I'd prefer that the states flags be left alone.

The shitstorm of disagreements that taking this on would whip up would just prolong the disharmony we hoped would have ended by now.

:popcorn:

[Occam Bandage]

36. Oh, I generally agree. The modern Confederate flag is reprehensible in intent,

but banning it would only grant it greater power.

[obliviously]

13. Do you mean confederate?

[santamargarita]

14. Yes it's racist - did Germany ban the Nazi Flag?

:argh:

[Thickasabrick]

19. You are not seriously comparing confederate soldiers to Nazis???

That's just fucked man.

[Occam Bandage]

35. True. Nazis only put their minorities in work camps for short periods of time.

And they didn't build their entire economy--check that, their entire society--around the 'peculiar institution' of death camps, either. So plus two for the Nazis.

[Thickasabrick]

49. I am not talking about slave owners. I am talking about confederate

soldiers, many of whom had no direct involvement in slavery and was not the motivating reason for them in taking up arms for the confederacy. That is just wrong to compare them to Nazis.

[Occam Bandage]

54. The motivating reason for them to take up arms was indeed slavery.

When South Carolina seceded, claiming the "tyranny" of the North, it was not afraid of tax distribution, nor of import tariffs. All the events leading up to the war--especially those in which people did indeed pick up guns--were about slavery. All of them. Every. Single. One. The Missouri Compromise. The 1850 Compromise. Kansas-Nebraska. Bleeding Kansas. Dred Scott. Harper's Ferry. Lincoln's election. Even the 1830 Nullification Crisis, which was specifically about tariffs and states' rights regarding them, was seen by the Southern public primarily as a first step towards Northern abolition of Southern slavery.

The claims of the noble struggle for States' Rights as an abstract ideal are a modern fabrication dating from the 1920s and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and Confederate apologism. When a Southern fighting man said "States' Rights," he knew what he meant.

[Thickasabrick]

80. I disagree and feel your slant on the causes of the Civil War

are "revisionist". Many books have been written on the causes of the civil war with many differing viewpoints. Historians have been debating the causes for decades and probably will continue to do so for decades to come.

It comes down to which narrative you believe and how much you want to debate it. I do not believe I have ever heard anyone call confederate soldiers Nazis and I found it highly offensive.

[chimpymustgo]

120. White supremicists wanted to OWN black people and work them to death, rape them at will

and degrade their humanity for their own profit and personal gain and pleasure.

That is why the CSA seceded from the Union. All the other smokescreen excuses, reduced to their lowest common denominator come back to one issue: southern whites, having built an economy and a way of life based on slavery - dammit, they wanted to keep it that way.

And THAT is really not debated anymore among serious scholars.

[Thickasabrick]

127. Oh...so the northern carpetbaggers rape of southern white and black

women was ok?

In actuality, Lincoln was a moderate on slavery and at the start of the war would have been ok with everyone keeping slaves in order to keep the union intact.

It is a matter of historic opinion as to the causes of the civil war. I happen to disagree that the main cause was slavery.

[Occam Bandage]

131. It is only a matter of historic opinion among those who purchase the revisionist history

dreamed up by '20s/'30s Lost Cause sympathizers, who scrambled to find any justification that didn't involve slavery. They were romantics, not historians, and were more concerned with Gone with the Wind and Birth of a Nation than they were with historical fact. Never mind that the South seceded because they were afraid Lincoln would ban slavery. Never mind that John Brown and Uncle Tom's Cabin were the cultural centerpoints of the buildup to the war. Never mind that the only previous time and place in which Americans shot each other was in Bleeding Kansas, and that was explicitly over whether Kansas would be slave or would be free. Never mind that every single previous North-South political dispute was about slavery, from the 3/5ths Compromise to the Missouri Compromise to the 1850 Compromise. Hell, even during the 1830 Nullification Crisis, which was ostensibly about tariffs, the papers and the demagogues of South Carolina spent nearly all their time spreading fear that Federal control of tariffs was only the first step on the way to Federal outlawing of slavery. But never mind that. Isn't it much more beautiful to think of a noble lost cause?

Before entering office, Lincoln was not a moderate on slavery by any means. While he was not a flaming abolitionist, he was still radical. He entirely believed that the nation would eventually have to abolish slavery or perish (you do recall his "house divided" speech). He declared the Declaration of Independence applied to all men, black and white. He was adamant in the Lincoln-Douglas debates that slavery must be contained, and eventually ended. However, above all he was a pragmatist. He was willing to set aside his views on slavery in order to preserve the nation, and that was quite reasonable even from a radical-Republican perspective. In their eyes, if the South were to successfully secede, then not only would abolition never come, but the Republic would collapse as well, and history's greatest experiment in political liberty would have ended in failure. His willingness to compromise on slavery in order to win the war by no means indicates that his positions on slavery were not strongly felt, nor does it indicate that his positions were not terrifying to the South. It is not an accident that the South seceded immediately upon the election of Lincoln.

[Thickasabrick]

132. Ok....some of your post is total bullshit. Lincoln was a moderate

on slavery and I quote Lincoln one month before the EP:

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

His primary goal was to save the union.

He changed from a moderate to a solid anti-slavery proponent only later. The idea that this was his major goal initially is just revisionist crap.

[Occam Bandage]

134. I don't think you actually read my post. Let's try again.

Yes, Lincoln strongly tempered his preexisting views on slavery with pragmatic assurances of moderation in order to preserve the Union. Had he come out saying "lol I'm gonna ban it everywhere" he would have immediately lost Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, and Delaware to the Confederacy*, he would have almost zero domestic support (for only the most John Brownish of abolitionists would agree to an aggressive war to stop slavery), and the war would have been quickly lost. Pragmatism and moderatism are not the same thing, and the fact that you happily confuse the two gives some insight into the type of mindset that accepts Lost Cause revisionism.

I never suggested that Lincoln's major goal in the war was to end slavery. Obviously it wasn't; for the reasons I listed in my previous post, his goal in pursuing the war was to preserve the union. However, if you can read the Lincoln-Douglas debates (all seven of which were about slavery, and in which Lincoln makes his viewpoints extraordinarily clear), and read the House Divided speech, and still come off thinking that Lincoln was a moderate, then you're either beyond reason or you're completely ignorant of the political climate of the late 1850s. Lincoln's radical anti-slavery views were not just a major impetus for causing the South to secede, they were the major cause for the wave of secession. I mean, seriously. It isn't like the South said, "hey, man, it's 1861, time for the Civil War. Let's get some Confederacy up in this place."

The fact that Lincoln acted and spoke pragmatically in office doesn't mean anything as to his views or as to (more importantly, given the topic is about the cause of the Civil War) Southern perception of his views, especially not if they are taken out of historical context. The fact that he had preserving the union as a higher goal than abolition of slavery, and that he was willing to set aside the latter to advance the former, does not mean he did not hold the latter, nor does it mean that the latter was not instrumental in causing the crisis that led to the necessity of the former.



*Even the Emancipation Proclamation exempted those areas, as well as areas that were already under Federal occupation, for obvious reasons.

[Thickasabrick]

136. Ok....this has gotten way off topic but I appreciate your passion and

some of the points you have made. I am sorry, but I disagree with you that the civil war's main cause was slavery. My ancestors were from Tennessee and my great grandfather fought for the confederacy. He did not approve of slavery and never owned any - neither did any of his relatives. He believed in state's rights and felt he was defending his homeland. For you to refer to him as a Nazi offends me. I respect the union soldiers because they believed in what they were fighting for. I would never call them Nazis although some of the behavior following the war of ex-union soldiers would be more comparative.

I personally think Lincoln used blacks as cannon fodder and he never thought that blacks should be equal to whites right up to the day he was murdered. The race riots of New York are hardly ever talked about. The North has it's own history of racial injustices but that is hardly ever discussed.

I am done with this topic and no, I do not think the conferate flag should be banned.

[chimpymustgo]

143. Please, thickasabrick, tell me what YOU think caused the Civil War.

[Stellabella]

121. Why don't you read the articles of secession?

Slavery is mentioned about 500 times.

That was the reason for secession. YOUR stance is 'revisionist'.

[Thickasabrick]

128. I think your stance is revisionist.

[Occam Bandage]

130. Tell it to Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina.

They were pretty clear in their declarations of secession.

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Mississippi:

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

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

South Carolina:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

[Stellabella]

138. Thank you!

Proof right there in black and white.

[Kalyke]

124. And, again, you are wrong.

Most of the people who fought for the South couldn't afford to own slaves.

You are the purveyor of the revisionist history - not the other poster.

[Occam Bandage]

129. No, it was not about personally owning slaves. Obviously not.

It was rather about preserving the South. Slavery was the fundamental institution of the South; it was what made the South, well, Southern. Southern society, from the elite to the poor, revolved around the peculiar institution. Slavery was not incidental to Southern culture, it was the foundation of, the center of, and the most striking feature of Southern culture.

You cry States' Rights in the war? Look at the buildup to the war. The South did not shudder in fear when Lincoln said "this nation cannot remain half disrespectful of Federal import tariff regulations and half respectful." Thousands of Southern and Northern proto-guerrillas did not fight a bloody, protracted war of skirmishes in Kansas Territory over whether farmers would be living in a government that had the capability to override taxation and conscription requirements or one that did not. John Brown did not become a nightmare figure because he threatened a rebellion of postal service workers reporting to a Federal bureau and not a state bureau.

It was all slavery. It was always slavery. And it was only slavery.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. The Battle Flag of Northern Virginia

is a racist banner, because it was appropriated after the Civil War for use by the Ku Klux Klan. The Confederate Flag (all variations) does not have the racist connections that the Battle Flag does. That is why it infuriates me when people insist that the Battle Flag should be flown on state capitols, etc, for its "historical significance". BTW, in Harrison AR they fly the Confederate Flag at the Confederate memorial on the courthouse lawn, not the Battle Flag, which no Confederate soldier from Arkansas would likely have recognized. And every time I walk by that memorial, I whistle "The Battle Cry of Freedom".

[tularetom]

16. It's a symbol of "southern pride" WTF that is

Like anybody has a right to be proud of starting a fight they couldn't finish, groveling to get back into the union they tried to get out of, and then acting like they actually WON the fucking war.

It's not a racist symbol as much as it is a fucking joke. It's a symbol of incompetent treasonous losers.

[Occam Bandage]

47. Incompetent is right. No nation fighting for independence ever enjoyed such advantages.

They were fighting a democratic parent nation with regular elections, a population predisposed to look upon Southerners favorably as fellow "Americans," and with a fractured party in power with a generally disliked President.

They had a population almost unanimous in its support.

They had a strong proportion of the regular army, and the best and the brightest of the officer corps defect to their side.

They had a valuable resource they alone could provide the world, and two nations in Europe who needed that resource and who strongly disliked the parent nation.

They had several million slaves that could either provide free labor, or could be freed and used as grateful soldiers.

They had a rough terrain with which they were familiar and with which the Union was not.

They had far better horsemen, and they had tens of thousands of guerrillas ready to go off and fight at a a moment's notice.

They were mostly a nation of farmers, meaning that any one part of the Confederacy could be captured and the rest could operate as if little had happened.

They had brilliant engineers and scientists who could match the Union trick for trick and innovation for innovation.

They had the strategic defensive the entire war.

And all they had to do was to convince the Union it wasn't worth it to keep fighting. A single great victory could do the trick. So could a year or two of denying the Union a great victory.

It was only through absolute incompetence at the strategic level (choosing to fight pitched battles was noble but idiotic), at the diplomatic level, and at the governmental level that they managed to lose the Confederacy. Fortunately for their legacy, the Confederacy had men of tactical brilliance. Were it not for that, they would be rightly remembered as one of the most underperforming independence movements in history.

[jody]

20. Much ado about nothing. Go to wikipedia's partial lists of flags below and just ban all of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flags#Groups_or_movements

[KamaAina]

22. Yes. No.

We are privileged to live in a country that has the right of free speech, so while it is racist, no, it should not be banned.

That being said, it should not, ever, be displayed in any public place, like, hypothetically, the SC state Capitol grounds. :grr: :banghead:

[Lint Head]

24. The Nazi flag is not banned here but it also does not fly over

capitol buildings here and it is banned in Germany. It was a different time when the Confederate flag was used. For that matter the original American flag flew over the country during the Revolutionary War. The political elite not only held held slaves at that time that also slaughtered Native Americans by the thousands. Maybe the American flag representing 13 colonies should be banned also. Just something to think about as this is debated. :dem:

[tilsammans]

25. Racist, yes. Banned, no.

It's a part of our history, like it or not.

Those who display it now, however, (I see it a lot on vehicles) are broadcasting their views loud and clear.

[TankLV]

26. Why don't you just go up to every one and slap them in the face...

it will have the same effect as this topic...

[ZombieHorde]

98. Slap who in the face? nt

[Orangepeel]

29. It is racist and shouldn't be displayed on public buildings, etc. But banned? No.

Racist words and symbols should be denounced, but not banned.

[Obamanaut]

31. The battle flag, which so many fly and/or put on their bumpers is

a flag, a thing, a piece of cloth - so no, it is not racist. The flag of the Confederacy (and three different designs were approved at various times) is also not racist.

Some people who have them are.

No, neither the battle flag nor any of three flags of the Confederacy should be banned.

[underpants]

33. Yes and No

[Uzybone]

34. Racist, 99.9% of the time yes...Banned, no.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. It depends and no.

[Occam Bandage]

38. Usually, yes. No, it shouldn't be. nt

[donco6]

70. +1

[Arctic Dave]

40. I wouldn't ban it. It is a lot easier to tell who the f*cking idiots are

without resorting to dunce caps and scarlet "I's".

[AlinPA]

48. Good point.

[sofa king]

41. I don't like it.

And I don't like the all-too-common apologist's line that the Civil War was fought over states' rights. Sure, the war was over states' rights: very specifically, it was over a state's right to fucking enslave people. There was no other issue which could have divided the country so. None ever did, before or since, because while the United States has committed and condoned plenty of ghastly acts and violations of our so-called inalienable rights, none of them approached the scope of holding millions in enforced servitude, as slavery did.

Everyone knows what a Nazi flag looks like because we've all seen it, and we all know what the heritage of those bastards is. But you don't see a damned one of them flying over a state house in Germany, and every single one of you would scream for blood if you heard someone planned to do that.

To me, there is no difference. Both of those flags represent repression and contempt for human rights. What keeps them both waving are the hands of the ignorant and the racist sons of bitches who tell them what to think.

Edit: I still don't think it ought to be banned. I think it should carry the same social stigma that the swastika does. If that were the case, then we'd have one more indicator of who the assholes are.

[Duncan Grant]

44. That flag is to southern culture as nose picking is to a good first impression. (nt)

[BlooInBloo]

45. BWAHAHAAA!!!

[ngant17]

46. Unfortunately the "Stars and Bars" design has been partially incorporated

into a number of Southern/ex-Confederate state flags, Mississippi, Georgia, and Tennessee are all based on Confederate-designed flags. North Carolina was possibly taken from an earlier Confederate flag. The flag of Alabama and Florida may seem to be of Confederate inspiration, although they have red crosses instead of the traditional blue. Is the cross of St. Andrews(aka the blue version, the so-called "Southern Cross") a racist symbol as it serves the basis of the Confederate design?

If the original Confederate flag is racist and needs to be banned, you could probably also argue that these Southern states' flags are guilty of racism by association and thus funds need to be available to start a new fresh design of the offending states' flags, devoid of any association of the old Confederate designs.

This would not seem practical given the current economic situation these days.

I personally would not care if this flag should disappear, as I have no affiliation with so-called Southern culture, whatever that is, though I am WASP and a Florida native.

[jefferson_dem]

53. Yes. No.

n/t

[Harry Monroe]

55. It wasn't racist originally, but then the KKK and others of their ilk co-oped the flag

That's what makes it a racist symbol. BTW I live in Mississippi, the only state left in the Union to keep the Confederate "Stars and Bars" as part of their state flag. I cringe everytime I look at that piece of shit and am reminded daily why Mississippi is last in economy, education etc. That rag is an embarassment and I wouldn't hesitate to wipe my ass with that sorry ass excuse for a state flag and symbol of everything that is wrong with this backwoods, peckerwood, redneck state!!

[bunkerbuster1]

113. Actually, the flag craze really opened up in the 50s... at least here in GA.

I was a little shocked to realize that our "stars and bars" version of the state flag only dated back to 1956; it was a direct rebuke to Brown v. Board and the civil rights movement.

Funny thing is, we have finally changed back to a flag that actually dated back to the old CSA. it's not controversial at all--actually, I think it's quite pretty.

[quickesst]

58. Some people say.....

...that hate groups who adopt a flag as a symbol is good reason to ban that flag, and hold it and all it stands for in contempt without question, regardless of the flag's origin and intent.

<>

I disagree. Thanks.
quickesst

[Occam Bandage]

66. I find the Confederate flag's origin and intent the most offensive parts.

The modern "Confederate flag" is based on the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, which was a treasonous organization dedicated solely to killing Americans in an attempt to preserve the "right" to own humans and force them to labor as slaves. Its symbolic intent is, of course, adherence to that organization.

I do not want to ban the Confederate flag, but the claim that its origins and its symbolic intent are benign is not something I can agree with.

(I will grant it one thing, though: it is the most aesthetically pleasing flag of which I am aware, beating out even the Union Jack.)

[W_HAMILTON]

59. Having lived in the South all my life...

...yes, it's racist. The people that show the flag off only use the excuse "it's part of my heritage!" to hide their racism.

I think it should be banned. Not necessarily because it's racist, but because it represents a traiterous part of our nation's history. Even if you take them at their word, and believe them when they say it's them honoring their heritage, how dare they honor a time when our country was divided?

What's funny is, the same morons that hold that flag up are the same type of idiots that are the first to call anyone they disagree with traitors.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. Racist is arguable, but regardless it should not be banned, even in schools

There is no right not to be offended and learning how to deal with things that offend you.

Its called free speech, deal with it. If something is offensive, vote with your dollars or your feet without bawling to the media about how hateful you think something is and how much it offends you.

[mitchum]

67. Above all other considerations, it is stupid

[leftofthedial]

71. No.

No.

[MadHound]

73. For the overwhelming majority of people who fly it, it is a racist symbol

That's been my experience. It isn't about "southern culture" or "heritage" or what not, it's just plain, pure, outright racism. Furthermore, it is the flag of a traitorous group of people.

That said, and given the Constitution, no, I don't think it should be banned. Besides, as somebody pointed out upthread, it makes it easier to tell who the hateful idiots are out there.

[comrade snarky]

90. That mirrors my experience as well

I grew up in Texas in the 70s and 80s so I met plenty of people who had an "affinity" for the confederacy.

Not one of them, not one of them I got to know who wasn't a bigot. That damned flag is a clear message. Funny, most of them were into southern culture and heritage or whatever they wanted to call it. Usually ended up with a pitiful call for the south to rise again. Like those losers would do better than the first bunch even if they could convince more idiots to follow them.

That flag's only use is as a convenient moron tag. Ban it? No, then it will take longer to identify the morons.

[devilgrrl]

75. I think the NAACP should adopt it as their new logo.

It'll disappear from flag poles, bumpers and rear-view windows lickedy-split.

[jpak]

76. It's fucking racist and identifies assholes for what they are...

stupid

dumbfuck

southern

dumbfuck

old timey

dumbfuck

racists

did I say stupid old timey dumbfuck southern racists?

yup

DO NOT BAN IT!

Let their freak flag fly....

:rofl:

[fishwax]

83. it's racist n/t

[donheld]

89. Yes it's racist, free speech should not be banned.

[proteus_lives]

92. Yes, most times it's used for racist reasons but it should not be banned.

[turntxblue]

94. difficult to find agreement

I'm afraid that all I can do is just bring more confusion to the issue, even when considering it on a purely emotional basis. Many years ago, The Dukes of Hazzard was a popular television show, which used a car emblazoned with a Confederate flag. Although I seldom saw more than just snippets, my memory of the show was that it was a light hearted comedy which basically made good-natured fun of southern "good ole' boys". It was geared more to children, and made many little boys aware of the Confederate flag. So, I think it possibly helped to revive the popularity of the Confederate flag which may remind some "30somethings" more of a TV show than a symbol of racism. As a native Texan, I've now evolved to the point where I find myself quite uncomfortable with random display of the Confederate flag. True, it is a part of southern history, and there is merit in that argument. However, I think that the history argument is sometimes used as an excuse to intentionally offend others in a seemingly acceptable way. For me, personally, I don't feel that my need to see that flag is important enough to take the risk of hurting someone else by having it on display. But, that gets back to freedom. I have the freedom to choose to not display the flag, and I'm not truly convinced that I have the right to deny someone else the right to make their own decision. Ultimately, it might be possible to ban a perceived symbol of racism, but racism, itself, cannot be successfully banned. Hearts must be changed. We're better than what we once were, but we still have a long way to go.

[Zomby Woof]

95. No and no

I am a member of the ACLU too, and love our first amendment.

The flag in question is a battle standard, used to identify troops on the field of battle, and is not inherently racist - no more or less than "Old Glory", which presided over slavery and institutional racism for more than four score and seven years (and for that matter, many years after). A hearty fuck you to the KKK and any others who have misused the flag to convey a meaning it never had, and never should have had. Abuse of the flag by white supremacists, Klansmen, and others of their ilk does not mean they own it. However, they have been immensely successful into fooling both liberals and themselves into thinking so - because these polar opposites both see the flag the same way - just from inverse perspectives. Both would be wrong. Both play into each other's hands too.

Shelby Foote said that back when the civil rights movement was underway, and racists were abusing the flag for their own ends, there were southern intellectuals who should have spoken up at that time in defense of its historical meaning, AND against its misuse as a racist symbol, but they were too cowardly to do so, or drowned out at the very least - and the opportunity was lost. It reminds me of the classic quote regarding the lessons of the Holocaust, ..."and then they came for me, but by then there was no one left to speak up."

Many people from the south, or who have southern ancestry, benignly yet proudly look upon the flag as a symbol of their regional and cultural heritage. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. Some from this perspective are wrong, however, when they choose to ignore or dismiss the negative meaning of the flag as seen by others, because it has been hijacked by the likes of the Klan and the average racist next door. On the other hand, the morally clear "correct-thinking" absolutists on our side of the political spectrum should also not allow that same negative meaning to become theirs as well - and recognize that not all who display or take pride in the banner are racists or "neo-Confederates". It's conceding the definition of the flag to the worst definers of it. The irony is that both the defenders and detractors of the flag needlessly alienate and antagonize each other, while in the meantime, the ignorant racists are gleefully continuing to abuse the symbol for their own ends, and the vicious cycle continues.

[WildEyedLiberal]

96. It's more often than not racist, but it shouldn't be "banned"

Last time I checked, "racist" speech is still protected by the First Amendment.

[ZombieHorde]

99. Often times yes, but it should not be banned. Country music and Southern rock should be banned. nt

[Harry Monroe]

112. I hope you are being sarcastic in banning country music and southern rock!

I can take or leave country music, but never ever diss the Allman Brothers!!:hi:

[XemaSab]

100. As a symbol of the past, no

As a rallying cry for the present, yes.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

103. Yes and yes

it is racist and it should be banned from flying it from any state or federal building.

If some idiot wants to tattoo it on their face, ass or other body part... well that is their business.

It is a racist statement and it is a warning to anyone of color to stay away.

But then I came from a long line of idiot racists who would have hung a n----- from a tree in the back yard... I know from experience that having that flag is a statement of racism.

I cringe when I see it. I get downright angry.

[downeyr]

104. My opinion...

Is that yes, the flag is inherently racist in what it stands for: states' rights, aka the right of the states to hold slaves. No, it should not be banned because of the 1st Amendment. I hate the "stars and bars" a lot, but it still shouldn't be banned.

[EndersDame]

105. As a minorityliving in TX I see it more analogous to the Anarchist flag

that brandised by teens and college kids in metropolitian areas as a sign of rebellion.All beit racists do like to use it alot too and and it can be interperted as aracist symbol.My better half's grandma has a confederate flag framed along with some medals her ancestors earned displayed in corner ofthehouse kinda tucked away in a hall way. I thinkherdisplayis not racist in any way just simply part of her family's history.I am not for banning anything as i am totally free speech.

[GaYellowDawg]

106. Yes, I believe it to be racist. It should certainly be banned from flying from public places.

No, it should not be banned from private use.

[LostInAnomie]

107. Racist? Without a doubt. Banned? Only if you have no respect for the 1st Amendment.

The only context I can imagine a person flying a Confederate flag without it being racist is in the confines of a Civil War re-enactment. The "Heritage not Hate" line is bullshit used to give a patina of "honor" to what is really overt racism.

[timtom]

108. My opinion:

No, it was not racist.
Wait, yes it was.
Just as the American Flag is racist. (And it IS.)

[Dogtown]

109. Yes/No

Yes, it is a racist emblem. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is lying, at least to themselves, but more probably to white-wash their own racism.

The crap excuse that most southern soldiers did not themselves own slaves is disingenuous. Those men supported the rights of slave-owners and attempted to defend a slave-based society and economy. They feared and hated the concept that black people were their equals.

The typical have-not cracker at the time, although a failure and insecure economically in his own society, at least could observe with "pride" his status as superior to that of the detested negro.

They did not, many of them, own slaves, but they damn sure insisted on a black person stepping into the gutter when *they* swaggered down the boardwalk. They agreed that any black could be beaten, raped, or murdered at the whim of the white owner.

To any that are defending the CSA and the odious battle-flag I'll explain your *real* heritage: hatred and the "freedom" to subjugate an entire race of humans. To those self-benighted fools who are proud of this heritage, I'll remind you that the last flag to fly over your "glorious" CSA was the white flag of shame and dishonor.

They lost and I'm really, really glad.

That said, I support the constitution and freedom of speech. Let the racist cowards fly their hateful rag and identify themselves as the dregs of a free society.

[Echo In Light]

110. The only people I've ever seen displaying it are ridiculously ignorant, macho assholes

...who get a hard on over what it symbolizes. So, while I'm unsure about the idea of banning it, based on my experiences it's one of those symbols that immediately reveals the mentality of the person using it.

[Bucky]

114. Logic: Racists use the Confed. flag. Racists breathe oxygen. Thus, the Confed flag is oxygen.

Move over, Socrates.

[Harry Monroe]

116. God is love. Love is blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Ergo, God is Stevie Wonder.

Edited to add: God is a blind black man. Wow, wouldn't that piss racists off!!

[baldguy]

117. It should be treated with the same derision & loathing as the flag of Nazi Germany.

Both the Confederates and the Nazis wanted to destroy America.

[S_E_Fudd]

119. Yes it is racist...

It was flown in defense of a regime that existed because of its racism...

Its use for this purpose was reaffirmed during the 1960's

I don't believe any government entity should incorporate it in their official flag...

However, should it be banned by law?...no!

Free speech trumps any benefit we get by its banning...

[Kalyke]

122. First, the flag of which your thinking about is not the Confederate flag

This is:



Secondly, I think it should just be ignored. I find it ridiculous that we give so many inanimate objects the power to terrorize us or nationalize us.

:shrug:

Worry about real racism today - which isn't just in the South - rather than a silly piece of cloth.

[Badgerman]

141. It's a SYMBOL of the Confederacy...that is sufficient cause!

See Reply #139
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5756419&mesg_id=5761889

[Kalyke]

144. It's a piece of cloth.

FWIW, I think pledging to the flag is stupid, too.

I'd pledge allegiance to my country, but pledging to a piece of cloth is rather odd when you really think about it.

[LLStarks]

123. Racist? No. Ban it? No.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

125. They lost

It should not be flown.

[solstice]

126. Of COURSE it's racist. It should NOT be flown by ANY government entity.

If private racist citizens want to decorate their trailors or pick up trucks with it, that's up to them. But it should never be endorsed in any way - including flying over a state capitol - by the government.

[scheming daemons]

133. Banning it only gives it MORE power

The Nazi flag isn't banned here.

By banning it, you make it MORE desirable for the fucks to display it.



I say ban it on public building..... but in this country, we have free speech (still).... individuals should be able to own it and display it.

I like it being out in the open.... when I see it on somebody's house or bumper, it tells me all I need to know about that person and I avoid making their acquaintance.

It's like my own personal "Idiot Detector".

[aikoaiko]

137. Racist? Some people wish to send racist messages with the flag and some decode the message...

as racist regardless of senders intent.

Most people I know who fly it (college students) don't want to see slavery come back or wish Jim Crow laws would be reinstated. In fact most agree that one should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Ban it? No way. 1st Amendment protected without a doubt.

[Badgerman]

139. One and one only reason exists to restrict the display of the Confederate flag...

The confederate flag carries a bag of symbolss, only one of which is slavery. But it has one fact associated with it that lends credence to its display on PUBLIC properties or by PUBLIC entities: Had the Confederacy won the war, the United SStates of America would have ceased to exist. THAT IS FACT! The northern states may have continued to use the name, but the Constitution would have to have been radically rewritten, as well as the laws...in other words the USA of 1860 would not have been the USA of 1870 and beyond. THe vicory of the South would have been little different from the victory of Germany, or Japan...we as a people would have survived, but our nation would not!

All the flags and symbols of the Confederacy have one place and ONLY one place where they are appropiate...in museums!

[Uncle Joe]

140. If "perception is reality," there is no reality because everybody has a different perception,

therefore to ban or restrict speech and symbols because you disagree with them would ultimately warp reality.

While fighting to defend the sensitivities of one group you would inevitably alienate another, and the government would be engaged in an eternal game of whack the mole.

I believe time is among the best healers of emotional wounds and looking in to the future I see a reduced physic need for those descendants of the Confederate Soldiers to wave their battle flag.

Of course there will compelling forces on both sides that hinder or delay this closure, on the one hand are those trying to force their hand via sanction and or banning; I believe this will only serve to create an opposing force or backlash resulting in the Confederate Flag being more embraced by it's defenders.

On the other hand will be the hatemongers, KKK, racist skinheads and such appropriating the flag as an exclusive symbol of their cause, just as to some degree, they do with the cross and the U.S. Flag, those groups must be actively denounced by the faithful defenders of the Confederate Flag.

I believe ultimately closure will take place but for the sake of national and racial unity, it must take place naturally.

In the words of singer/philosopher Bonnie Rait "I can't make you love me if you don't."

[varelse]

142. We can't ban it

unless we first amend our own constitution.

It's as racist as any other national flag, imo. "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

146. cant ban it. free speech and all.