Thoughts about "Confederate Flag" being banned

[Marceaux]

Well they took the flag down in Carolina.

[Nipplestockings]

Y'all should read the article I linked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/01/why-do-people-believe-myths-about-the-confederacy-because-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/?postshare=811435843106111

[MaxLam]

If the war against slavery can be called a war of aggression, then how should we call slavery? Slavery is a permanent state of war and aggression. And this horrendous system was the main "right" of the South, its "peculiar institution". Defending the so-called 'rights' of the South meant violating the fundamental rights of Man.

Moreover, this war was a civil war, not just a war between North and South. Many people in the South were loyalists. Why don't you build memorials for the loyalists?

"Many southern soldiers remained loyal when their states seceded; 40% of Virginian officers in the United States military, for example, stayed with the Union.[4] During the war, many Southern Unionists went North and joined the Union armies. Others joined when Union armies entered their hometowns in Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana and elsewhere. Over 100,000 Southern Unionists served in the Union Army during the Civil War, and every Southern state, except South Carolina, raised at least a battalion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Unionist#cite_note-5

The Confederate flag is definitely not the flag of the whole South.

[PolarBeats]

Y'all should read the article I linked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/01/why-do-people-believe-myths-about-the-confederacy-because-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/?postshare=811435843106111

There are quite a load of inaccuracies in that article that even their correction didn't note and I couldn't even mention without completely re-writing the article , as well as they do not give proper context to South Carolina's specific Deceleration of Secession but instead jumble their reasons with other reasons and the going hysteria. Its a much rather biased article, interesting as it is I wouldn't rely on it as defense to an argument or even to prove a point. When I went to school (Alabama btw) when the civil war was mentioned it depicted the war as being the conquest to end slavery in the south, there was never a glorified southern cause in that book, wasn't till I did independent research now that I am in my adult years that I truly formed an opinion. I see the cause of the abolition of slavery as nothing more than a parlor trick, to help the civilians rally behind a "righteous" cause to help make the Union not seem like the bad guy for invading the south. When the Union declared war, it wasn't for slavery but the containment of the Southern States and the tariffs as well as the agricultural industry they planned to take with them. It simply was a War of Northern Aggression. In the span of seven months the South formed and the North invaded.. Nothing more and nothing less.

Spoiler

If the war against slavery can be called a war of aggression, then how should we call slavery? Slavery is a permanent state of war and aggression. And this horrendous system was the main "right" of the South, its "peculiar institution". Defending the so-called 'rights' of the South meant violating the fundamental rights of Man.

Moreover, this war was a civil war, not just a war between North and South. Many people in the South were loyalists. Why don't you build memorials for the loyalists?

"Many southern soldiers remained loyal when their states seceded; 40% of Virginian officers in the United States military, for example, stayed with the Union.[4] During the war, many Southern Unionists went North and joined the Union armies. Others joined when Union armies entered their hometowns in Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana and elsewhere. Over 100,000 Southern Unionists served in the Union Army during the Civil War, and every Southern state, except South Carolina, raised at least a battalion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Unionist#cite_note-5

The Confederate flag is definitely not the flag of the whole South.

[close]

Neither was the Stars and Stripes for the American Revolution, loyalists were a thing. People will always choose a side and it may not be the side that you live in, and memorials are usually erected to remember those who died in defense or died with the intent to do something or even to honor their triumphs. Slavery also is not a state of war, nor is it always a state of aggression, most people you find who support the actions of the confederacy such as the SoCV or DoCV demonize the institution of slavery. The War also was not a war against slavery but to end the southern rebellion and slavery was a "wargoal" added. In 1783 at the end of the American Revolution and America was a free country, the brave men who advocated for every man to be free never abolished slavery and even took on slaves of their own. I view it as hypocritical to damn the Confederacy for their views on Slavery when the US didnt and had no intentions of solving slavery till after the rebellion. There is no difference from the Continental United States and the Confederate States of America.

[MaxLam]

 - "deceleration of succession"
 - "Deceleration of Secession"

Dyslexia?

[Nipplestockings]

Y'all should read the article I linked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/07/01/why-do-people-believe-myths-about-the-confederacy-because-our-textbooks-and-monuments-are-wrong/?postshare=811435843106111

There are quite a load of inaccuracies in that article that even their correction didn't note and I couldn't even mention without completely re-writing the article , as well as they do not give proper context to South Carolina's specific Deceleration of Secession but instead jumble their reasons with other reasons and the going hysteria. Its a much rather biased article, interesting as it is I wouldn't rely on it as defense to an argument or even to prove a point. When I went to school (Alabama btw) when the civil war was mentioned it depicted the war as being the conquest to end slavery in the south, there was never a glorified southern cause in that book, wasn't till I did independent research now that I am in my adult years that I truly formed an opinion. I see the cause of the abolition of slavery as nothing more than a parlor trick, to help the civilians rally behind a "righteous" cause to help make the Union not seem like the bad guy for invading the south. When the Union declared war, it wasn't for slavery but the containment of the Southern States and the tariffs as well as the agricultural industry they planned to take with them. It simply was a War of Northern Aggression. In the span of seven months the South formed and the North invaded.. Nothing more and nothing less.

You support these accusations with no evidence. What claims made in this article are nonfactual? In what ways is it biased?

Read this also btw

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/06/19/how-people-convince-themselves-that-the-confederate-flag-represents-freedom-not-slavery/

[MaxLam]

Of course there is no evidence, this is just bullshit that they have been repeating for years without any kind of evidence. Civil War historian James Oakes agrees with this idea of "northern aggression", but not in this stupid revisionist sense. He says that historical evidence proves that the Republicans were trying to build a belt of free states and waters around slave states which would make slavery in the South unsustainable. The Democrats denounced this plan, so there was nothing secret, and this eventually led to the secession of the South. By seceding, they gave up on their constitutional rights, and the North could attack, which was exactly the plan of the Republicans. So it was a war of Northern Agression, but the main aim was to abolish slavery.

Moreover, if the point of the war was only to size the economy of Southern states, why abolish slavery when slavery was the core of the economy of those states? This is nonsense.

[Jonny Powers]

Well, this has been a really interesting read about all the ideological viewpoints, none of which I'm going to cover here. My argument, which I posted several days ago, is that, as far as businesses are concerned, they can do what they want. I mean, in hindsight (which is always 20/20) results like this should have been expected once the ANV battle flag got tied to it. And, in the end, you can still buy it if you just do a Google search.

As far as state grounds and monuments and cemeteries, well, there's nothing much that we can do there either. In all honesty, some of these battles have been going on for a long time and have gained publicity boosts because of the news, like the one to remove the N.B. Forrest statue from some Tennessee park and return his body to the cemetery he was buried in (his body was moved in the early 1900's and placed under the monument. I don't think he should have been moved in the first place), of which there's an interesting Vice doc from a couple years ago. These measures, for the most part, will get passed through because they're popular, and what politician is going to give up a portion of their constituency and jeopardize reelection chances because of a flag?

In the end, I don't think this will be much of an issue for much longer. Let the fervor die and maybe they'll start to pop back up by monuments, memorials, graves, etc. Hell, go buy your own and plant em yourself. I can easily see supporters of the flag putting them back up or standing watch over them to protect them from vandalism. Go file suits over it, go protest, push legislation. And if you're opposed to them, protest them, file suits, push legislation, hell, sneak out, take em down, burn em. Try and keep it as legal as you can, however.

[junedragon]

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/10/kid-rock-confederate-flag-protesters-kiss-my-ass

[Rhen]

Insanity. Ban a flag due to current happenings? If this is the case, I believe there are plenty of other flags to be banned. Why don't we just remove every single one, instead, to make it easier for all? Because I can banter on all day long about reasons to ban about every single flag in the World.

[Josy_Wales]

America is one of those countries where the winner takes it all. Instead of letting people be proud of their heritage and history, they take away and hide everything that isn't pro US.

[MaxLam]

There is nothing to be proud of.

[Rhen]

We should create some real proper hillbilly CSA regiment just to fight against this, so we can demand a historically accurate flag or whatsoever - and for the lols.

[Josy_Wales]

There is nothing to be proud of.

Its no point in arguing with someone who don't want to see other then his own opinion, and makes it clear that his opinion is unchangeable. If the people who want the flag down was as interested in knowing the background and history of the battle flag as they are in taking it down, there would have been no problem at all. After all, whether you were good or bad wasn't based on where you came from or what flag you fought under. The white man in America did so many wrong things that its just plain stupidity going into detail of who was worst.

[MaxLam]

Shameful statement. John Brown must turn in his grave.