Stars and Bars - Is it acceptable?

**GoreBag** · 06-20-2005, 01:06

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Hopefully someday the south will rise again.

Why wait for the South to rise? On that note, I'd like to add that I hope the Red Man rises again too.

To address the original issue, I see no problem with the Confederate flag or even the Swaztika. I had this discussion with my own father, once, after seeing that a Confederate Flag was hanging from the rear-view mirror of a motorist driving in front of us.

If "public opinion" is that a symbol can only have one meaning, then damn the public opinion. Everyone who raises a Confederate flag will have different reasons for doing so; anyone who passes early judgement on anyone else's intentions and meanings for promoting any kind of symbol is a bit of an idiot.

**Don Corleone** · 06-20-2005, 02:01

Originally Posted by doc_bean

What other state right were they fighting for ?
(Besides, they left the Union before Lincoln was ever sworn in.)

At the time of seccession, the Southern States had to get approval from Congress to raise the price of cotton, corn or any of their other goods. The North routinely blocked protection tariffs on cotton, peanuts, indigo and other agricultural goods coming in from foreign countries, while consistently increasing the tariffs on processed and machined goods or agricultural goods imported from other countries, such as coffee and tea. They wanted to establish a monopoly. You could argue that the root cause of the Civil War was the structure of the Senate. Why did Rhode Island & Connecticut get 4 votes in the Senate, when that's all Virginia and North Carolina got, even though they had 6 times the population at the time?

Slavery was a despicable practice that was abhorent and was actually a social cause in the South at the time as well. Less than 1% of whites in the South owned slaves, even though over 5% owned at least 50 acres of land or more. To say the Civil War was fought over slavery and slavery alone is akin to saying that WWI was fought solely as an exercise of Slavic nationalism. It focuses on the match, not what lay in the tinderbox. The vast majority of Southerners at the time saw the war as an invasion by a tyranical force that had ceased to be representational of their needs or welfare.

Now, the actual point of the thread was the Confederate Battle Flag. I think I heard a Southern US Army veteran put it best (I'm actually a yankee, and I've only lived here for 6 years, this guy works at my company). Regardless of your views on southern heritage, pride and states rights vs racsim, and the ensuing 140 years of Jim Crow & white supremacy in the South, there is one very simple reason we should not allow Americans to fly the Confederate Flag. By their own desire, they were a sovereign state that attacked a US military outpost and continued a war (sometimes aggressive, sometimes defensive) for 4 years against our nation. Just as we do not honor the Union Jack (except for diplomatic reasons) or the Rising Sun, we should not honor the Confederate Battle flag, especially as the nation it represents no longer exists. And this was from as proud a Southerner as you'll ever hope to find.

**King of Atlantis** · 06-20-2005, 03:12

As a southerner i have to say it is acceptable. The flag represents southern pride not any kind of hate. The American flag flew over slavery a lot longer than the confederate as did many other accepted flags.

I could discuss at length how the civil war was not at all about slavery, as the union also had slave states but im not really in the mood.

I was thinking about putting confederate flag next to american in my sig, but i didnt want to offend anybody. Lynard skynard should have definately used rebel flag as the were trying to represent the south.

**Kanamori** · 06-20-2005, 03:51

Indeed, slavery was a point of friction, mostly in that it was a manifestation of the north vs. south confrontation. As Don points out, the friction arose in the tarriff battles, which was later manifested in the hot debate of states rights by calhoun and webster, two very important names in American history. (I think the time period is one of the most important in our histroy, and one of the most interesting, when politicians strongly beleived in what they were fighting for.) I've said it before, I believe, but prior to the immediate years prior to the war, the North was more vehemently anti-anti-slavery than was the South, because they feared the "loud mouthed moral zealots" -- like garrison, http://www.nps.gov/boaf/williamlloydgarrison3.htm, who was almost killed by a mob of rich people in Boston -- would cause secession (garrison publically burnt the costitution, and most of the anti-slavery movement was seen in the same light as him and John Brown). Anyways, I stray, the North-South battle over slavery was based in a power struggle, the North never had the intention to abolish slavery, merely halting its spread west. But, later on, when Lincoln was elected and the South saw it as, in a slippery slope way, as the end of slavery, and North Carolina followed through on its threat about thirty years ago. The emancipation proclamation was a succesful attempt to keep England and Europe in general from joining with the South, which is another side note of history, Lincoln succesfully kept the states from falling into war with England from a very precarious situation. I feel it is important to note that, while an extreme minority of southerners were slaveholders, it was a part of the American Dream to be rich enough to hold slaves. A good book on the issue is The Metaphysical Club, a few measly paragraphs cannot sum up the enormity of the issue and all of its history.

And, the South's extreme version of state's rights was on of the main reasons they lost the war.

**Pindar** · 06-20-2005, 08:07

Originally Posted by ichi

Its a....flag, symbolizing not States Rights but armed rebellion, and has racist overtones as well.

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

... there is one very simple reason we should not allow Americans to fly the Confederate Flag. By their own desire, they were a sovereign state that attacked a US military outpost and continued a war (sometimes aggressive, sometimes defensive) for 4 years against our nation.

I concur with the honorable gentleman from Utah and with the honorable gentleman from North Carolina.

**Pindar** · 06-20-2005, 08:09

Originally Posted by Kanamori

A good book on the issue is The Metaphysical Club, a few measly paragraphs cannot sum up the enormity of the issue and all of its history.

Good book choice there.

**InsaneApache** · 06-20-2005, 08:12

Nor was the United States without active friends in England. Such reformers as John Bright and Richard Cobden spoke up vigorously in support of the Lincoln government, and even when the cotton shortage threw thousands of textile workers out of employment, the British working class remained consistently opposed to the Confederacy.

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

I was told this as a child*. The workers in the Lancashire cotton mills refused to deal with Confederate cotton and placed it on an unofficial embargo. This was one of the first instances on the labour force flexing it's muscles, not for financial gain, but for a principle. So although it is generally acknowledeged that the war was not started on the issue of slavery, it quickly develpoed into that very thing. A similar scenario unfolded during WWII, which started as a response to the German invasion of Poland, but is now wildly seen as a war to combat Nazism.

I actually do think that the battle flag of the Confederacy represents the attempt to retain slavery, and therefore is a negative symbol. The Stars and Bars flag is not that generally well known (outside of the south that is) and I'd be surprised if anyone would be offended by it.

*by my great-grandmother who was born in 1874 and she was told by her father who took part in the protests.

**Al Khalifah** · 06-20-2005, 09:43

The Southern Cross issue may seem ridiculous, but here's another flag that many consider offensive and as a result is now rarely flown because people believe it has racist undertones:

Yup, the current flag of England is now sparingly used officially and is only comfortably used by the majority of the population at sporting events where England is represented seperately from the United Kingdom. This is because it is believed to have racist undertones because it is used by far-right groups and is also considered a symbol of English nationalism. St. Andrews cross on the other hand is freely flown in Scotland, because it represents Scottish pride.
This is the current flag of nearly 50,000,000 people and yet it has be shunned into almost non-existance away from sports events and even then the PC Police are complaining that its usage is innapropriate and excessive.

**Taffy_is_a_Taff** · 06-20-2005, 13:21

Al Khalifa:
In Wales people get to fly the official Welsh flag without trouble.
Some people also take the flag of Owain Glyndwr (so basically the royal flag of the last bit of totalw Welsh political independence) to sports matches etc. This has been complained about for being racist but I believe is still tolerated by the authorities: that is very weird, no reason for those accusations at all.
In Wales you also see people flying St. David's cross a fair amount too, I'm not sure in anybody has any problems with this.

**Al Khalifah** · 06-20-2005, 13:53

That's the annoying part. St. George's Cross is treated as having racist and nationalist connotations where as the other flags of the United Kingdom are seen as representing pride.

Its part of this larger issue of what represents pride and what represents prejudice. Where I think the PC police are falling apart is there inability to distinguish between the two. They seem to have selected certain symbols and ideals as being wrong, even though there are others that are more so.

The hammer and sickle and other USSR related symbology is another good example. It is acceptable to paint this everywhere whenever trying to brand something as 'revolutionary' or 'communist' (despite being propagated by a capitalist mass-marketing machine, but thats another issue). Imagery of Stalin also seems tolerable. However, National Socialist Party symbology and imagery of Hitler is completely unnaceptable and the ban of all related symbology in Germany and the attempted ban throughout the EU reflects this. Where is the difference? Both of these men and their regimes were responsible for the purging and destruction of millions from entire groups of society, both domestic and foreign, yet one is acceptable (even cool) where as the other is totally taboo.

This is not an endorsement of Nazi symbology nor an attack on Communist symbology, merely an example of a blatant piece of hypocrisy in today's sugar coated world.

**Kaiser of Arabia** · 06-20-2005, 15:43

The flag ain't coming down anyway, not just out of my room

but throught the South. And I say this again: Too bad the south lost.

**t1master** · 06-20-2005, 17:04

the emancipation proclimation was a military order aimed at inhibiting the south's means of production during the war.

i used to have these discussions all the time with my hillbilly friends in college. i get the whole southern pride thing, but explained, like the op's dad did, the popular understanding of the symbol is gonna get you labeled nasty things you might not want to be associated with.

**English assassin** · 06-20-2005, 17:17

If "public opinion" is that a symbol can only have one meaning, then damn the public opinion. Everyone who raises a Confederate flag will have different reasons for doing so; anyone who passes early judgement on anyone else's intentions and meanings for promoting any kind of symbol is a bit of an idiot.

I don't agree with that, this sort of relativist argument causes a lot of trouble. Words and symbols do, largely, have an objective if not immutable meaning. That's how we manage to communicate with each other.

The issue is whether the Confederate flag irredemably has an offensive meaning. As an Englishman I don't know, although obviously I know of its use in the civil war I don't know how an American would react to it today. Also, its use will be context dependent. As a backdrop to a Lynyrd Skynyrd set it might not be offensive, being paraded through a black neighbourhood by a white gang it might well be.

The St Georges cross could go either way and I feel quite strongly about it. By allowing only racists to use it, it will take on a racist meaning. Its far from too late to save it, so I am all in favour of it being used a lot more by normal people. As I am pleased to say it is.

But I find the arguments that the swastika was a symbol for many nations before it was used by the Nazis beside the point. I might have been rude about relativism above, but its true a symbol's meaning can change with time. This symbol was adopted by one of the most evil regimes there has ever been, and that has irredemably changed its meaning today. Its almost the paradigm of it. The fact that it used not to have this evil meaning is wholly irrelevant. If the Nazis had marched under the banner of my mum's face, I'm afraid mum would have to accept that her previously perfectly harmless physiognomy had through no fault of her own become the symbol of ultimate evil.

**Steppe Merc** · 06-20-2005, 20:05

i get the whole southern pride thing, but explained, like the op's dad did, the popular understanding of the symbol is gonna get you labeled nasty things you might not want to be associated with.

And sadly they did. Not just by their detractors, but also by their fans. So it did cause them to be misundestud (how the hell do you spell that?). I blame the fans, my dad blames the fans but also Skynyrd for allowing room for the fans to misunderstand them.
Ronnie Van Zant (the leader of the band) also once went to a fancy record promotion, and they told him to dress up. So he wore a Confederate officer's uniform.

The St Georges cross could go either way and I feel quite strongly about it. By allowing only racists to use it, it will take on a racist meaning. Its far from too late to save it, so I am all in favour of it being used a lot more by normal people. As I am pleased to say it is.

Which was exactly the view of the members of Lynyrd Skynyrd, I believe.
My friend from England considered getting St. George's cross on the roof of his car. He decided to go with the Union Jack instead. At the time, I was unaware of the racist conatation, so I didn't really get it. Why is it considered racist? Is it because of England's colonial past?

And I can see where Don's friend, Ichi and Pindar are coming from. Myself, I don't see any difference between flying the battle flag of the Confederates and say flying the Union Jack or St. George's Cross. Just because we fought Britian in our past doesn't mean British people shouldn't be able to fly their flag. Of course, it's not quite the same obviously, but I really don't see a problem.

**GoreBag** · 06-20-2005, 20:14

Originally Posted by English assassin

The issue is whether the Confederate flag irredemably has an offensive meaning. As an Englishman I don't know, although obviously I know of its use in the civil war I don't know how an American would react to it today. Also, its use will be context dependent. As a backdrop to a Lynyrd Skynyrd set it might not be offensive, being paraded through a black neighbourhood by a white gang it might well be.

So a symbol's context is more important than the symbol after all. I rest my case.

**Don Corleone** · 06-20-2005, 20:28

I'm not familiar with the provisions of the Act of Union, so I can't say whether flying the St. George takes on any 'anglo-superiority' overtones (to Americans, race means black, white, brown, red or yellow... if you want to clue us in on this particular issue, say ethnicity).

However, there is one huge difference between a Britt flying the Union Jack over here and people flying Dixie.... There IS a Great Britain, and he IS a citizen of it. The Confederacy does NOT exist, and any former member of it swore allegiance to the United States and promised to never take up arms against it again as grounds for being readmitted. Dennis is about as proud of his southern heritage as one can get, including what the Confederate army was able to accomplish given what it had and who it was facing. But he's the first one to get agitated over this, as in his mind, it's treasonous and disrespectful to Old Glory, a flag he almost died defending.

**KafirChobee** · 06-20-2005, 20:28

Why persist with a symbol that others find offensive? Except to continue the stirring of a boiling pot?

As a simple courtesy they ought to be suppressed - kept from public viewing. However, freedom of speech remains a viable arguement for them. Therefore, they must be allowed, but acknowledged for what they are: Symbols of hate and intolerance.

Further, it must be noted that these symbols have less to do with "pride" than attempting to initiate a confrontation, or to be confrontational to those that find them insulting. And, they work in that process of creating hate, fear, and insulting the feelings of others. Which is the real intent of those using them. They have nothing to do with regional pride, and all to do with continuing a statement of subjigating one peoples' will over that of anothers.

Living in the South, I see the stars and bars frequently. It doesnot offend me personally, but I do realize there are others it does. And, that is the intent of most of those that use it - to show they support the local KKK and have disdain against all non-WASP groups.

Using history as a front to the continued displaying of offensive symbols is intellectual masturbation in its finest form. It attempts to put the blame for a symbols present meaning back into some warm and fuzzy time where it did stand for the pride of a people (regardless of how corrupt, foul, and/or degenerate those people were. It attempts to justify the actions of the past that the symbol represents today into some kind of morally correct (at the time) issue. The arguements for their continued use, employs false premices to justify their continuing use today. For me it is a bit sordid to use an arguement for slavery as a reason to fly or display the stars and bars. Or, to say - well, there were Northern slaves. Where? Missouri? [note: was a reverse underground railroad that was run near ShawneeTown, and Junction, ILL. 'til 1861 - some say 'til 1930. That I was introduced to as a kid. Lincoln once slept there, trying to garner the owners support for his run to the senate - he didn't get it.]

The point is, if something offends others ... why defend its usage? Not how can I defend it, but why should I?

**doc_bean** · 06-20-2005, 20:29

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

At the time of seccession, the Southern States had to get approval from Congress to raise the price of cotton, corn or any of their other goods. The North routinely blocked protection tariffs on cotton, peanuts, indigo and other agricultural goods coming in from foreign countries, while consistently increasing the tariffs on processed and machined goods or agricultural goods imported from other countries, such as coffee and tea. They wanted to establish a monopoly. You could argue that the root cause of the Civil War was the structure of the Senate. Why did Rhode Island & Connecticut get 4 votes in the Senate, when that's all Virginia and North Carolina got, even though they had 6 times the population at the time?

didn't all states get 2 votes in the senate ? I thought that was written into the constitution.

And were the slaves counted as part of the population ? (or as 0.6 free man)

I'd also like to repeat that the I never said the war was fought over ideological reasons, there were a lot of issues surrounding slavery that led to problems too.

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

The hammer and sickle and other USSR related symbology is another good example. It is acceptable to paint this everywhere whenever trying to brand something as 'revolutionary' or 'communist' (despite being propagated by a capitalist mass-marketing machine, but thats another issue). Imagery of Stalin also seems tolerable. However, National Socialist Party symbology and imagery of Hitler is completely unnaceptable and the ban of all related symbology in Germany and the attempted ban throughout the EU reflects this. Where is the difference? Both of these men and their regimes were responsible for the purging and destruction of millions from entire groups of society, both domestic and foreign, yet one is acceptable (even cool) where as the other is totally taboo.

I think the difference is that Neo-Nazis still pose a threat. The proletarian revolution isn't likely to happen, in Europe we have communist parties, but they're just extreme socialists, they call themselves communists for sentimental reasons i guess.

Right-wing parties, often with ties to neo-nazi organisations (or nazi organisations, like the eastern front veterans) are often still major players in European politics. Neo-nazi's still run around, attacking Jews or burning down Mosques occasionally, or just starting fights with immigrants.

**Steppe Merc** · 06-20-2005, 20:43

Or, to say - well, there were Northern slaves.

How about all of the border states that didn't succeed? (Or couldn't).

Why persist with a symbol that others find offensive? Except to continue the stirring of a boiling pot?

Ah. So because my button on my backpack that has as W with an x threw it is offensive to Bush supportors, I ought to remove it? Because I'm stirring up a boiling pot, I must remove it?

Further, it must be noted that these symbols have less to do with "pride" than attempting to initiate a confrontation, or to be confrontational to those that find them insulting. And, they work in that process of creating hate, fear, and insulting the feelings of others. Which is the real intent of those using them. They have nothing to do with regional pride, and all to do with continuing a statement of subjigating one peoples' will over that of anothers.

For most people, perhaps. But you're dead wrong if you think Lynyrd Skynyrd were racists, or wanted to start a confronation. It was regional pride to them, and others.

However, there is one huge difference between a Britt flying the Union Jack over here and people flying Dixie.... There IS a Great Britain, and he IS a citizen of it. The Confederacy does NOT exist, and any former member of it swore allegiance to the United States and promised to never take up arms against it again as grounds for being readmitted.

I just wanted to bring it up, even though I knew it was obviously not the same.

And what of say historical reanactments, or movies? There are many Civil war reanctments fought. Should all those that "fight" on the Confederate sides not be able to use the Stars and Bars, or the other flags? Where does the banning of symbols end?

Doc, about the neo Nazis, it could be said that the KKK still exist (though they aren't that much of a threat), and they still use the Stars and Bars. But they also use the cross, and they used to burn it on victim's yards. Should we outlaw the cross as well?

And I want to echo Don's question: what exactly does the St. George's flag mean that represents racism? Or why is it percieved so?

**Don Corleone** · 06-20-2005, 20:46

Doc, you're not going to win this one. You might make some points with the argument that it was about slave states admitted to the union (and getting 2 senate votes apiece) versus free states, but that was on the issue of political power as a whole, not slavery in the particular. There were a HOST of issues between the north and the south and slavery was just the most visible.

You really need to do some research on the economics of the US cerca 1860 before you go saying the North went to war to end slavery (they most certainly did not) and the South went to war to preserve it (they for the most part did not). Yes, slavery was the issue du jour, but the 'cause' was much deeper. The Southern states really honestly believed they had as much right to secceed as their grandfathers did to rebel against King George III. And the North (and West) responded much the same way the Brittish did. Every time they attempted to get redress from the government, the small New England states used the Senate to block any relief.

The real hot button issue that had the south hating Lincoln was not slavery, as Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. He was however a huge supporter of federalism, and had made it clear that whatever laws Congress passed, whether they benefitted one part of the country at the expense of the other's, he was going to enforce, by force if necessary, and he'd let the supreme court catch up in their own sweet time.

Honestly, do you think we Americans just babble this 'state's rights' business whenever we manage to get a state legislature to pass a bill we like that thwarts the Congress? It was, and for some continues to be, an integral part of our political identity. What's more, it was intended to be a final check & balance against the tyrany of a federal government that managed to get agreement among all three branches to set out to screw the citizens. To imply that "anybody who talks about state's rights secretly wants to own slaves" is a bit unfair and actually a pretty weak argument.

It's clear to me, based on your tone during this discussion, that Europeans do not understand the American political mindset. To us, we start as individuals and then, only as needed, come together to form community and cede our rights to the greater whole (at least that's how it's envisioned. What we have isn't all that much different from what you have, sadly). Quite the opposite of the way you view yourselves, where the state is everything, and whatever role they leave for you, you take by default.

**doc_bean** · 06-20-2005, 22:23

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Doc, about the neo Nazis, it could be said that the KKK still exist (though they aren't that much of a threat), and they still use the Stars and Bars. But they also use the cross, and they used to burn it on victim's yards. Should we outlaw the cross as well?

1) the cross has another meaning to the US people, the Swastika doesn't really
2) the KKK today are hardly comparable to the neo-nazis imho, but I think someone would have to have lived in both the US and Europe to really be able to compare them.

Doc, you're not going to win this one. You might make some points with the argument that it was about slave states admitted to the union (and getting 2 senate votes apiece) versus free states, but that was on the issue of political power as a whole, not slavery in the particular. There were a HOST of issues between the north and the south and slavery was just the most visible.

I wasn't really fighting anymore

To what degree where those host of issues related to slavery though ? Or just made by Northeners who wanted to piss of the South. Possibly because the slave issue gave the North an excuse to pick on the South ?

You really need to do some research on the economics of the US cerca 1860 before you go saying the North went to war to end slavery (they most certainly did not) and the South went to war to preserve it (they for the most part did not). Yes, slavery was the issue du jour, but the 'cause' was much deeper. The Southern states really honestly believed they had as much right to secceed as their grandfathers did to rebel against King George III. And the North (and West) responded much the same way the Brittish did. Every time they attempted to get redress from the government, the small New England states used the Senate to block any relief.

The real hot button issue that had the south hating Lincoln was not slavery, as Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist. He was however a huge supporter of federalism, and had made it clear that whatever laws Congress passed, whether they benefitted one part of the country at the expense of the other's, he was going to enforce, by force if necessary, and he'd let the supreme court catch up in their own sweet time.

I still don't understand how the federal government could vote laws against the will of the South with an unlimited filibuster at their disposal. Well, I guess it was the same with the civil rights movement.

But if you look at some of the events leading up to the war, the Dred Scott case, the Kansas-Nebraska act, slavery was the big issue of the time. The South feared (rightly so) that the North would force them to free the slaves. While you can say that most people in the South didn't own slaves, how many of the politicians owned slaves ? Or were supported by people who did ? How far did money equal political power ? I honestly don't know, but I'd expect it to have had quite an influence. Nowadays money still has a lot of impact, and it would seem only natural that it was worse back then.

Politicians start wars, soldiers just want to end them.

People at the time probably identified more with their state then with the Union. The size of the states and the huge distances in the US would make this pretty obvious. So if the politicians of the confederacy declared war, it would only be natural for the people to try and defend their 'country'.

The question whether they had the right to secceed is a difficult one. i guess they just tried it with the wrong president.

Honestly, do you think we Americans just babble this 'state's rights' business whenever we manage to get a state legislature to pass a bill we like that thwarts the Congress? It was, and for some continues to be, an integral part of our political identity. What's more, it was intended to be a final check & balance against the tyrany of a federal government that managed to get agreement among all three branches to set out to screw the citizens. To imply that "anybody who talks about state's rights secretly wants to own slaves" is a bit unfair and actually a pretty weak argument.

Actually, I have nothing against state rights, I just said it has often been used for racist or other negative purposes. Which gives it a bad reputation. State Rights are meant to promote freedom and the rights of individuals, not limit them. The issue of slavery is debatable, but civil rights being a state matter ? Abuse of a good concept.

It's clear to me, based on your tone during this discussion, that Europeans do not understand the American political mindset. To us, we start as individuals and then, only as needed, come together to form community and cede our rights to the greater whole (at least that's how it's envisioned. What we have isn't all that much different from what you have, sadly). Quite the opposite of the way you view yourselves, where the state is everything, and whatever role they leave for you, you take by default.

I'm not sure what it was about my tone that gave you that idea. I tend to find our governments to 'big' and often counterproductive. I believe they should only be involved when they give an added value. While I would include healthcare here, i don't my views are all that different from yours.

**Kaiser of Arabia** · 06-20-2005, 23:03

The flag represents the American's ability to attempt to overthrow tyranny. It represents pride in the south, in a homeland. Yeah, it may be offensive to blacks. But! The Soviet flag is offensive to me, as I have relatives who died fighting the Soviets. But I don't order it to be taken down (and some car dealership near me actually flies it ~

). If you find it offensive, too bad; It's up. And it's not just a symbol of rednecks, it's a symbol for anyone that beleives in freedom, liberty, and America. Because, beleive it or not, Southerners are Americans, and the CSA was an American nation, even though it rebeled against the United States. And if you don't like it, well, tough, just ignore it. Don't be a baby like the ACLU, let people have their symbols. Because, I'm sure that you have yours.
Thanks.

**Red Harvest** · 06-20-2005, 23:21

When I was younger the rebel battle flag was seen more as a statement of an independent and rural nature, rather than a guise for racism. I wore it or carried it in one form or another at times as a kid/teen (rarely). So to me, the flag still represents that rebellious independent statement of youth rather than anything else. Unfortunately, it is also used by racists. If the flag could be kept out of race politics arena, then I would have no problem with it. I don't get upset about the southern heritage aspects (except when folks try to justify slavery.) I think it is wrong to try to remove it...except in cases where it is being used for racial overtones. The pendulum has swung too far, but it will likely cool down and swing back.

Don't let the claims that the ACW was about "States Rights" fool you though. States Rights was protection of the "peculiar institituion." The war itself was primarily about slavery...for the southern states, not so much for the northern states though. The nation had become badly divided on this issue, and slave states were trying to do what they could to hang onto and advance the institution. The north was not rabidly anti-slavery on the whole, but they did want to preserve the union, and most were against the South's attempts to expand slavery into more territories.

I was raised in Missouri and Kansas, so I have somewhat mixed views about the whole war. Missouri is the only state that was represented in both the Union and Confederacy at the same time. The guerrilla war there was probably the bloodiest in the nation.

Lincoln didn't abolish slavery early on for political/military reasons. He had concerns about factions within the various northern states, and border states that did not support abolishing slavery. It was a very tricky balancing act, but Lincoln was a shrewd politician. It was hoped that some of the newly recovered regions would be less resistant if slavery was left unchanged for the time being.

**Red Harvest** · 06-20-2005, 23:29

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

The flag represents the American's ability to attempt to overthrow tyranny.

I have no problem with the flag or basic southern heritage, but this statement is false. Calling the Union tryanny is nonsense. The south wanted to keep and expand slavery to new territories. It was holding a substantial portion of its population in human bondage, the ultimate tyranny. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Secession was not done in response to actual abolition of slavery. No, it was done pre-emptively. There had been discussions of phasing out slavery over time. The south wanted no part of it and did not try to work out a compromise.

**Kaiser of Arabia** · 06-20-2005, 23:32

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

I have no problem with the flag or basic southern heritage, but this statement is false. Calling the Union tryanny is nonsense. The south wanted to keep and expand slavery to new territories. It was holding a substantial portion of its population in human bondage, the ultimate tyranny. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Secession was not done in response to actual abolition of slavery. No, it was done pre-emptively. There had been discussions of phasing out slavery over time. The south wanted no part of it and did not try to work out a compromise.

Secession was done because the south, southern rights, the southern econemy, and the southern way of like, was threatened by a northern dictator.

**GoreBag** · 06-20-2005, 23:39