To most white Southerners: Justify using the Confederate flag!

Why am I not surprised that so many pople take the lowest common denominator when talking about history. How many of you are actually avid students of history? My guess is very few.

The Civil War was fought over states rights and economics. The complete abolishion of slavery was just a bonus at the end of the war. We'd like to think it was totally about freeing the slaves in our new-age touchy feely politically correct B.S. world but it wasn't. Lincoln couldn't care less about the slaves, he thought the country would be better off without them. What would have happened to the freed blacks had Licoln not been assasinated? I've read plans about the deportation back to Africa(Liberia) of all the freemen. The Emcancipation Procalmation did not free all the slaves, only the ones in Confederate Territory, not the slaves in the Border Staets! The Civil War was about the federal government trying to get rebel provinces back under its control, because those provinces had the idea that there were a few things that only they knew best, and didn't want to be told otherwise by anyone.

Now onto the flag. It is widely thought of as a symbol of states rights, but it has also gotten some bad marks because of its use among racist organisations like the KKK and other weirdos. Some of you mentioned before that the Swastika is an evil symbol. WRONG DUMMY. The swastika is a 4000 year old ancient Buddhist symbol for prosperity and peace. It is also found in many other cultures throuhgout the ages, was it evil then????? It became evil in the public eye because an evil organization used it as their prominet symbol and made it more famous that way. Had there been no KKK or similar organizations then there would only be the connotation of states rights. Yes, some use it as a racist symbol willingly, but those few are the ones that get the most TV time. If you're guilty of thinking ALL poeple that fly the Stars and Bars to be racist, then you must also beleive that anyone who prays towards Mecca is a crazy fundamentalist terrorist just because those are the characters that get the most TV time as well.

Now speaking as someone that actually lives in the South (Texas) and has friends that fly and even wear the flag I can tell you a few things. (Well the university doesn't let us display the flag in dorm windows and such because so many screaming liberals complain about it) The Southern White Male is a very independent creature that likes to keep to himself and expects everyone to mind their own business. That's is especially true about the federal government. Now the South is also very big on tradition and inheriting the thoughts of the older generation (very conservative minded) and some of those thoughts still come from the 19th century and the "War of Northern Agression". These thoughts are all about minding your own busisness and keeping the government out of your hair.

The flag is also about heritage. Many Southerners can proudly trace their roots to those that fought in the Civil War, fought for a cause (right or wrong) that they beleived in and may have died as a result. Is it so wrong to pay homage to your ancestors? It is also wrong to have a provincial way of thinking about things? If you said YES, then what makes YOU so damn right?
 
Originally posted by sims2789
This is what I say about the Confederate flag:

It is racist.

It is part of History, but so is the Swastika. You don't see Germans waving a Swastika and saying it is part of their history.

It is un-American.

I agree. But I'm a Yankee transplant in the south.
 
Kilroy, how can you justify the implosion of a nation? The "right" to secede?

Does this mean that if Yokohama wanted to break off and become independent from Japan, would you think that is "okay" and would you view Japanese opposition to be "aggression?"
 
Originally posted by rmsharpe
Kilroy, how can you justify the implosion of a nation? The "right" to secede?

When they joined the Union, the states essentially signed a social contract that is the Constitution. Most contracts we deal with, that is contracts between two people, are backed by an authority of some kind, that will enforce the terms of the contract and allow civil suits to be filed in the case that the contract is broken. What higher authority exists in the anarchy of international relations? There is no higher court. The UN might have authority, however the new nation would have to join the UN first wouldn't it? And the SCOTUS certainly has no authority, as the legality of international affairs is beyond its jurisdiction. If Texas secedes, there is no one to say whether it is "legal" or not. Thus it is a moot point.

That's not even the important point. The right to secede is derived from the fact that, governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and when a state secedes the federal government has clearly lost that consent. Therefore, the federal government no longer has a legitimate claim to rule over that state.

Does this mean that if Yokohama wanted to break off and become independent from Japan, would you think that is "okay" and would you view Japanese opposition to be "aggression?"

Absolutely.
 
Absolutely.
Thats exacly what i've known for a long time you just nailed it down.
 
All sorts of federal vs state and multiple economic issues (tarifs MUCH more so than slavery) went into the reasons for secession. The salient issue than actually triggered hostilities was very narrow, however, it was the the federal government holding holding forts and enclave in the territory of the seceded states. If the Confederate states had been able to hold the water and negotiate or just sit on this matter for a period of time rather than opening fire, war would have been very unlikely. It would have been almost impossible for Lincoln to get a war to bring them back in without them having fired first.
The VARIOUS confederate national and battle falgs tend to mean little in Texas, west of Houston anyway. Texans hug the Lone Star Flag, which is both the current state flag and the prior national flag.
 
Wouldnt Lincoln have been forced to order the arrests eventually of the southern governors and legislators who voted for secession? That would have led to somebody shooting somebody.
 
What ever Lincoln tried, he would have been unable to get war support in congress, without the south initiating hostilities.
 
I, as a liberal European, have one at home..... I do not have plans to enslave all blacks in my house, nor do I intend to seceed form the US of A........
 
Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
What ever Lincoln tried, he would have been unable to get war support in congress, without the south initiating hostilities.

Didn't Lincoln ask all states to send soldiers, right after the secession of South Carolina and the other 5? states? Didn't the southern border states officially seceed, after this request of Lincoln?
 
Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
There is no point in flying the flag of a nation that no longer exists, and indeed, never legally existed.

There is a point if you believe it had right to exist. Yes, it's un-american, but since when being un-american is wrong?
 
It depends entirely on how you are using it. I don't see anything wrong with it if the motive behind it is legitimate. People using it legitimately should be careful to distance themselves from the negative associations that the flag has though.
 
Originally posted by Wyrmshadow
Why am I not surprised that so many pople take the lowest common denominator when talking about history. How many of you are actually avid students of history? My guess is very few.
And of course you are an acknowledged expert...

Originally posted by Wyrmshadow
Some of you mentioned before that the Swastika is an evil symbol. WRONG DUMMY.
Sigh yet another flame. Where it the admin when you need him/her?

Originally posted by Wyrmshadow
Now speaking as someone that actually lives in the South (Texas) and has friends that fly and even wear the flag I can tell you a few things.
I'm sure you think you can...

Originally posted by Kilroy
Just because the Union didn't recognize the legitimacy of the Confederate government (which was democratic, by the way, so this nonsense about a "revolt from democracy" is just that, nonsense), doesn't mean it wasn't legitimate.
Sedition is against the law. No state has the "right" to seceed.

Originally posted by JollyRoger


Using the term redneck can have no meaning except a racist one. Don't give me this Jeff Foxworthy I was only joking bs. And don't give me any heritage bs either. Since someone takes offense to the term as racist, it can have no other meaning other than its racist meaning. Why should the term be tolerated or given any thought about?

This argument sound silly? Consider the source I borrowed it from.
Where I come from a smiley denotes a joke. Don't like it? Too bad....
 
Originally posted by Wyrmshadow
Some of you mentioned before that the Swastika is an evil symbol. WRONG DUMMY.

I assume people were talking about the Nazi Swastika in particular, not just the pattern of the Swastika. In that case, that flag has almost entirely negative connotations.
 
This whole "We weren't fighting for the right to own humans but because we hate Northerners who were telling us what to do" and "there is nothing wrong with the Confederate flag or the swastika" seems to be the new credo of the Southern ultraconservatives.
 
Originally posted by Hamlet


What if the popualtion of said state want it?
So what? 7 out of 10 Americans think Iraq was involved in 9/11. Opinion no matter how widely believed doesn't change the facts. It was then and it is now against the law to attempt to overthrow the US government.
 
Why doesn't the USA have a 2nd civil war?

It will settle the issue for good, and give the rest of the world months of top quality TV viewing! :D
 
Originally posted by Formaldehyde
Sedition is against the law. No state has the "right" to seceed.

Sedition and secession are two distinct actions. It is possible to do one without doing the other. It is also, I suppose, possible to do both at the same time. You haven't addressed my derivation of the right to secede from the first principle of government only gaining legitimacy through consent of the governed. In fact all you've done to refute my claim that secession is an inalienable right, is to make an arbitrary claim to the contrary. That isn't very convincing.

You also don't seem to recognize that the laws and justice system of the secedee are irrelevant in determining the legality of the actions of the secedor.
 
Originally posted by Formaldehyde
So what? 7 out of 10 Americans think Iraq was involved in 9/11. Opinion no matter how widely believed doesn't change the facts. It was then and it is now against the law to attempt to overthrow the US government.

What is factually wrong or right is irrelevant to this.

Why should it be illegal or wrong for people to determine their constiutional status by democratic methods?

It's total nonsense, not to mention hypocritical and illiberal, to say that people should be allowed to make any demcoratic decision within a set framework, on any issue, except the democratic decision to leave said framework.
 
Back
Top Bottom