Confederate Flag

[Blythe]

Ack, got threads mixed up and accidentally posted this in the Charleston thread. Have moved my post here instead.


http://news.yahoo.com/ku-klux-klan-gets-green-light-pro-confederate-101117779.html

Couldn't find a better article...but damn, this was cringe-worthy.

[Ryven]

Ack, got threads mixed up and accidentally posted this in the Charleston thread. Have moved my post here instead.


http://news.yahoo.com/ku-klux-klan-gets-green-light-pro-confederate-101117779.html

Couldn't find a better article...but damn, this was cringe-worthy.

At least they're proving the anti-flag point.  They're a hate group, and they want the flag as their symbol.

[Andol]

I hope it is ok that I answer the original questions asked here, because I feel I can better make my own opinion know that way. Also I want it to be clear that my view on the flag comes from someone who had a relative that lost a leg at Gettysburg(His medical records where an interesting read). I know enough about my family history to tell you he wasn't rich and not a slave owner so I can only hope he was actually fighting for rights that he felt he lost. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I know it says somewhere in the Constitution or maybe some other document... (Sorry I am so bad at this guys :( ) that people do have the right to try to and bring down a government that they have felt has done them wrong. So I don't see it a being a flag flown by traitors either... simply people fighting for rights they believed stolen, just like the North and the government had the same right to smack them into line. XD On to my best attempts to answer the questions now... hope no one thinks of me as a bad person.

1. I believe I have already answered this question, but will try to add more. It is a battle standard, and that battle standard is a symbol that was co-oped by hate groups later on. The fact it now sits on a memorial in SC to Confederate troops... as it does in a lot of place is quite appropriate. To put anything else over there memorial is dishonoring them. You can't compare it to the Nazi Flag because a vast majority of those Confederate dead where not slave owners and so wouldn't have had a part in the cause of so much suffering. What the nazi's did was on a vastly different scale and the level of participation was as well. Where I am coming from is mostly trying to look through the lens of the men who where fighting and what they where fighting for. So I would put forth that it is only a 'hate symbol' when used as such, but when being used to honor dead American, because they where still Americans as we must remember Lincoln was big into the reconciliation thing and it was only his death that turned Reconstruction into a mess because of loss of proper leadership. (I hope I did a good job of not being confusing... let me know... only second post on E U)

2. I want to still answer this question anyway because when I saw something about this on the new I found it silly. Censoring art and history... even if we don't like it is never acceptable. The victor writes the history be damned, because these movies have been around for long enough, and to let one event(Because these suggestions seem to be propelled by the actions of a crazed individual.)drive us to preform an action like this. If one bans one flag that offends, then you just open a flood gate. I know that argument seems like it lacks common sense, but the desire to censor historical symbols out of media that has already been made is stupid. If people don't feel comfortable from this point on putting that flag up in a movie then go right ahead because it is your movie about the Civil War, but then it just looks inaccurate. Going back to part of the question about the intent of the flags use... well that is a grey line between free speech suppression and trying not to offend people. We do still have free speech and freedom of expression, and people have the freedom not to sell, look at, or regard a symbol they find distasteful. However people need to be educated on the true history of that flag(Which has been sadly co-oped by hate groups), and the real flags the Confederacy used.

3. I will say it again, its use as a battle standard, means that it came to represent something to all those men who died under it. So no I don't see it as the Confederate Flag. The American Flag itself has flow over some pretty bad events in our past... if one thinks of how the Indians where treated. So does that make it any more or less offensive? My opinion on this has more to do with the fact that this flag is something that is and should only be used to honor Confederate dead. The fact it was co-oped into a hate symbol by pop culture methods is where the problem lies... and dishonoring the dead for something those who came after them did isn't right. (Sorry if my argument didn't come out good... I tried my best... :) Let me know how I did guys)

[Cycle]

This is what South Carolina fought for.  In its own words:

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the Articles of Confederation, and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States.

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

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.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860

And this is the flag that South Carolina adopted when it seceded:

Not this:

That second flag, the so called "rebel flag" was the symbol of this man:

Look him up.  His name is George Wallace. 

[Ephiral]

You can't compare it to the Nazi Flag because a vast majority of those Confederate dead where not slave owners and so wouldn't have had a part in the cause of so much suffering. What the nazi's did was on a vastly different scale and the level of participation was as well.

This bit stuck out to me. The overwhelming majority of German citizens were not actively gassing Jewish people or running concentration camps; in fact, a significant number of soldiers who marched under the Nazi flag did so under penalty of law. (Unlike the CSA, the Wehrmacht used conscription from its inception.) The comparison holds, if these are your objections.

[Oniya]

Personally, my main issue is with having it fly above government buildings as if it is still a valid flag of state.  That's it.  If someone wants to put it on a cemetery plot, because that was the flag that the occupant fought and died under - that's their business.  If someone wants to fly it outside their house - that's their business.  I would, however, point out that the U.S. Flag Code dictates that

§175. Position and manner of display
    (c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United States at the headquarters of the United Nations.
    (d) The flag of the United States of America, when it is displayed with another flag against a wall from crossed staffs, should be on the right, the flag's own right, and its staff should be in front of the staff of the other flag.
    (e) The flag of the United States of America should be at the center and at the highest point of the group when a number of flags of States or localities or pennants of societies are grouped and displayed from staffs.
    (f) When flags of States, cities, or localities, or pennants of societies are flown on the same halyard with the flag of the United States, the latter should always be at the peak. When the flags are flown from adjacent staffs, the flag of the United States should be hoisted first and lowered last. No such flag or pennant may be placed above the flag of the United States or to the United States flag's right. Source

In other words, if you're flying both the Star Spangled Banner and the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, the Star Spangled Banner should be placed in its appropriate position at the right.   If it's a day to fly the Banner at half-staff, the Battle Flag must also be lowered.

[Cycle]

Senate vote's in:  37 to 3 in favor of removal.

House vote is in too:  94 to 20.



SC Legislators, thank you.

[Cycle]

[Bloodied Porcelain]

I'm going to keep my opinion relatively short and to the point and won't be posting or reading here again.

I don't trust people who fly the flag. They're either hateful or they're ignorant about what they're really saying with that symbol. I don't care what your intentions are, your actions are important to me. If you do the research and you still fly the rebel flag, you're supporting hate. If you don't do the research and still fly it "because heritage" you're just plain ignorant, and with the wealth of information at everyone's fingertips today, no one should be ignorant. Neither hate nor ignorance are things I want to associate myself with. I've been systematically cutting people out of my life who display either of those two things for years, and now that the rebel flag has become a focus of things and people are being more open and loud about their support, it's just shown me more people I want nothing to do with.

Yes to some degree flags and their symbolism is dependent upon the specific person looking at them, but just because you want to apply a specific meaning to a symbol doesn't mean you get to ignore the symbolism attached to it by society as a whole. You don't get to say "I fly this because it's my heritage" and expect everyone else to just be "oh okay then" and be totally okay with you. At best, you can expect them to say okay and then back away slowly and not speak to you much afterward.

All of that said, the above opinion is about individuals.

I do not think that the rebel flag has any business flying over state capital buildings or in any governmental area that isn't part of a historic display. If people want to fly it at the site of a major civil war battle, that's fine. If they want to fly it in a museum, that's also fine. If people want to put it in a historical game or movie, also fine (though I'd prefer they use it more accurately than it usually is). Presenting it in a historical context is fine. Presenting it over a modern governmental building where it has no purpose is not.

It should also be noted that even when the flag was first created, there was a heavy amount of racism attached to it. William T. Thompson was one of the flag's champions and part of designing it. When he did so, he was quoted saying the following:

As a people we are fighting to maintain the heavenly ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause. Such a flag would be a suitable emblem of our young confederacy, and sustained by the brave hearts and strong arms of the south, it would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as the white man's flag.

So if you're one of those "heritage not hate" people, please remember what the designers had in mind when they created the symbol of your "heritage". If it were my heritage (I'm happy to say my family got here after the mess that was the Civil War), I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with it.

[Modern Fairy Tale]

I believe the Confederate Flag controversy has a firm basis in necessity, but we are riding the crest of a very large wave.  This is like that tiny frothy part of a tidal wave on the very top... raised so high up although it seems so unimportant by itself, but once a wave gets to five stories tall or so the destruction it carries is tremendous.  If it were not for other forces, tremendous forces, this discussion would be trivial.

The Confederate Flag is the flag of a defeated nation.  Historically there are many examples of such.  Many Native Americans had flags representing thier traditions.  They fought against America and were defeated and dictated harsh terms of peace.  I think we could say the same about the Civil War.  Defeated national flags are still given respect and a place to fly and represent what they once represented.  The Confederate Flag should be treated the same way.  This is the grounds of how I feel about the Confederate Flag, its just that things got complicated later.

The Confederate Flag went out of circulation for a century.  This was the most costly war for America to outweigh every war since or before put together.  It represented national seperation, a humiliating defeat, and slavery.  Then when the Civil Rights movement really began to push... meaning 100 years later some of the terms of the peace which had been agreed to were still not being honored.  Southern states began to resent being forced to giving any such quarter and that is when the Confederate Flag came out in all of its glory.  "Here... hasnt this flag seen better times."  "Look at this and remember your place."  "Wasnt life better back then?"  Through the distorted lens of opinion, every white Southerner could imagine life was better then... as if all white people were just plantation owners fanning ourselves on our porch while the labor around them 'just got done'... although the truth of the matter was quite different.  Slavery had hurt the nation economically and culturally, and most of the damage had been in the South.

It is alright to have Southern pride.  I have lived in the South my entire life but I think and feel a lot more than just where I am geologically.  With education, communication, the internet, we are able to grow how we think of ourselves and our place in life further than whatever geological barriers which might have once encircled us.  Two hundred years ago we were just 'the people between this forest and that glen past which no one can be trusted.'  I am white, but at this point and on this forum that hardly seems to matter.  If we have learned anything over the last few decades is that we are more than our race/sex/sexual orientation/culture.

I still love where I come from... the poorer side of the Southern states.  I believe the Confederate flag has a place here.  In the back of a gun store, there might be a Confederate flag up.  The Dukes of Hazard should always be as they are.  Just like you might find an American indian national symbol in a tourist shop or glimpsed in an old Western.  In my mind there is no difference, there are tiny places where such a symbol is given legitamacy and allowed to exist and remind us of what was.  It shouldnt be flying at state capitals or part of state flags... that is just a 'screw you' not only to the grindingly slow Civil Rights Act but also to the bloodiest American war to stain our history. 

So in summation I think this shouldnt be about the hate, but placing the right emphasis where it belongs.  The tide I was speaking about earlier is the prejudism still prevalent in our society.  We try and say... we are past that.  We had Dr. King.  Then Rodney King happened, someone had a camera at a situation which was probably way too common.  Then the OJ Simpson trial happened, what?  Black jurors think white cops are out to get them?  Now days over and over acts of hate are captured on technology which didnt exist until cellphones ascended just making calls.  I saw a video of a cop shooting an unarmed black man as he tried to run and then handcuffing him and planting a taser by him... and done so smoothely as if hes thinking in his head, "Damn, this is the third one.  Need to stop doing this."  Systematic prejudism is so prevasive and thick even the white people can see it now.  We cant sweep it under the rug and avoid it in polite conversation anymore.  We never should have.  As soon as the Republican party could it repealed the anti-Jim Crow laws saying something to the effect of 'we dont need it anymore'.  Laws were changed in voter's registration within weeks basicly trying to undo the progress weve had since then.

We see now this isnt a static question or a simple one.  Because of a societal force which has grown under the skin of society like a festering wound, things which should only be relics of our past have been magnified.  We need to uncouple this situation and this symbol.  We need to address the real problem.  We need to uniformly decide how the colors of a country which was defeated at war with the U.S. should be dealt with and handled and do so uniformly and with whatever dignity such cultures deserve just for existing as part of our heritage.  With unbiased choices we should make whatever 'adjustments' we need to our society.  How do we treat the symbols of the Suiox nation, the Cherokee, the Creek, the heartbreaking hundreds of others we have plowed through?  Then into this protected status I say we place the Confederate flag, it seems only fair and perhaps a little bit ironic.

[Drake Valentine]

I'm going to keep my opinion relatively short and to the point and won't be posting or reading here again.

I don't trust people who fly the flag. They're either hateful or they're ignorant about what they're really saying with that symbol. I don't care what your intentions are, your actions are important to me. If you do the research and you still fly the rebel flag, you're supporting hate. If you don't do the research and still fly it "because heritage" you're just plain ignorant, and with the wealth of information at everyone's fingertips today, no one should be ignorant. Neither hate nor ignorance are things I want to associate myself with. I've been systematically cutting people out of my life who display either of those two things for years, and now that the rebel flag has become a focus of things and people are being more open and loud about their support, it's just shown me more people I want nothing to do with.

Yes to some degree flags and their symbolism is dependent upon the specific person looking at them, but just because you want to apply a specific meaning to a symbol doesn't mean you get to ignore the symbolism attached to it by society as a whole. You don't get to say "I fly this because it's my heritage" and expect everyone else to just be "oh okay then" and be totally okay with you. At best, you can expect them to say okay and then back away slowly and not speak to you much afterward.

All of that said, the above opinion is about individuals.

I do not think that the rebel flag has any business flying over state capital buildings or in any governmental area that isn't part of a historic display. If people want to fly it at the site of a major civil war battle, that's fine. If they want to fly it in a museum, that's also fine. If people want to put it in a historical game or movie, also fine (though I'd prefer they use it more accurately than it usually is). Presenting it in a historical context is fine. Presenting it over a modern governmental building where it has no purpose is not.

It should also be noted that even when the flag was first created, there was a heavy amount of racism attached to it. William T. Thompson was one of the flag's champions and part of designing it. When he did so, he was quoted saying the following:

So if you're one of those "heritage not hate" people, please remember what the designers had in mind when they created the symbol of your "heritage". If it were my heritage (I'm happy to say my family got here after the mess that was the Civil War), I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with it.

Actually it is documented in most history books of confederacy as

While we consider the flag which has been adopted by the senate as a very decided improvement of the old United States flag, we still think the battle flag on a pure white field would be more appropriate and handsome. Such a flag would be a suitable emblem of our young confederacy, and sustained by the brave hearts and strong arms of the south, it would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as THE WHITE MAN’S FLAG

Edit: Any who, I am not fully into symbolizing flags as anything. It is 'easy,' to say Confederate flag is a symbol of hate. I rather treat it as a symbol of treason, if anything. Maybe the principles of it was behind white supremacy, however Black people at that time had no rights. Black people at that time were not treated equally by either the North or the South. The only thing Black People at that time had to gain was their freedom, they were still seen beneath both groups. No, I am not being racist in this, I am simply stating facts. Let us take a look at what happened after the Civil War. Were Black People treated any better by the North or South? No. They gained their freedom, but they still didn't or hadn't had any rights of being treated equally. The Confederate Flag was establish well before a time when such views were just as common place. Similar views that went on for many years afterwards till Martin Luther King days that involved a huge movement and many sacrifices to gain equality. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe the U.S flag was flying high during those times, however we can just as easily shuffle the bad under the rug, despite the obvious hate and suppression at that timeline.

So bluntly speaking, where would we be now if not for that movement? Confederacy fell, but hate and superiority of another race still lingered. Once more, within the timeline of civil war, those views were acceptable, not many may voice against them as 'black men' were not seen as equals to whites and again weren't anytime afterwards the Martin Luther King events in timeline. We treat a Confederate flag as a symbol of hate where it really was a symbol of their own independence to be a country of their own and govern over themselves. (And I suppose if they were successful, one may imagine a similarity of North and South Korea, but it would be US instead in that sense.)  Now, they may of gain such independence if they didn't act on tyranny and attacked the North first, why they decided to fire on that fort is still beyond my understanding to this day.

Hmm, and not intending to avoid women equality, though I believe historically that only was addressed sometime after MLK days.

[consortium11]

It should also be noted that even when the flag was first created, there was a heavy amount of racism attached to it. William T. Thompson was one of the flag's champions and part of designing it. When he did so, he was quoted saying the following:

Actually it is documented in most history books of confederacy as

You're both mixing up the flags here; the flag that Thompson helped design, promoted and is describing in the quoted pieces was the second official flag of the Confederacy, the "Stainless Banner". While it incorporated the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virgina (what is now generally called the "Confederate flag"), the battle flag predated it by two years. The records we do have of the reasoning that went into the battle flag's design indicate that there was no particular meaning attached to the elements of it beyond the stars to represent the secessionist states and some revisions to the placement of them and the cross so as to avoid appearing like a religious banner.

That's not to dismiss other points about what the flag came to represent, especially in the 20th Century, but the way the various Confederate flags get mixed up can confuse issues.

[eBadger]

Judging by the number of such flags on display (banners, patches, hats, etc) the KKK certainly sees a tie between the flag and racism:  Inside the KKK

[Blythe]

https://twitter.com/RobGodfrey/status/622494558249684992/photo/1

Considering the KKKers rallying after the Confederate flag decision, I thought the above image was extremely powerful. That a black officer would still reach out to help a KKK member to water and shade was very moving...I would have been hard-pressed in the officer's position to want to bother to help that white supremacist guy at all.

(Edit: As a note, I'm referring only to the original Twitter comment by Godfrey and the photo, not any subsequent commentary by others on the photo)

[Mintprincess]

That image shows that good people are good people. The officer put aside hate and did his job and cared about humanity. If everyone had s few shreds of that in our souls the world would be a better place.  It's a powerful picture and I can hope it sends and message and reaches someone.  One person. 

We have a long way to go -worldwide- but more people everyday fight for equality. 

For everyone <3

[Lustful Bride]

https://twitter.com/RobGodfrey/status/622494558249684992/photo/1

Considering the KKKers rallying after the Confederate flag decision, I thought the above image was extremely powerful. That a black officer would still reach out to help a KKK member to water and shade was very moving...I would have been hard-pressed in the officer's position to want to bother to help that white supremacist guy at all.

(Edit: As a note, I'm referring only to the original Twitter comment by Godfrey and the photo, not any subsequent commentary by others on the photo)

At the end of the day people are still people. We live, we love, we cry, and eventually we all die. Everything else is just a label someone put on another human in order to hate them, but to hate another human, is to hate yourself as well.

[Callie Del Noire]

I admit, as a Southerner, I've always had a bit of mixed feelings on the flag. I grew up in North Carolina, which was the LAST state to join the confederacy. My family had folks fight on both sides, folks in NC and from up north..and down south. The thing is.. it's a mixed thing. To me.. the Dukes of Hazzard was part of it.. along with that car, the daisy dukes..:D. I knew it as something that represented what happened a long long time ago.

Then there is the other side. I had a friend growing up.. Alex Smith, a black kid who was the ONLY one who helped me up when another pair of white guys beat the snot out of me for being snarky to them. Alex was a great guy, big kid who didn't let anyone give anyone else guff. I remember the look on his face when the tools from Benson showed up to 'protest' a pair of white kids getting beaten. (Here is the open secret: they tried to beat up a black kid who JUST happened to be a Jr Golden Gloves student) None of the kids at school, aside from the six racists, backed the tools when they showed. I know the look he had at the flag.

I know the flag that started all this BS was a metaphorical thumb in the eye of the civil rights movement and am glad it's gone.

Do I think banning, hiding and the rest, is the right way to go. No.

Do I have an alternative for what to do? No.

I'm not pulling the Georgia State flag off my cruise jacket (along with the NC and SC flags) but I don't wear it that much anymore. Till I have an idea what I think.. I'll keep from wearing it. Because of that sad look on my long gone friend's face. Because I don't know how to take the flag back from the Hate.

PC censor ship by press release isn't the way. Closing down museums about the confederacy isn't.

Thats hiding your head in the sand.

[Oniya]

I'm assuming that you're talking about the museum up in Harrisburg that's been in the news?  (I'm guessing this because it was a *huge* ranting point shortly after the flag came down.)

There's more to that closing than what you've heard.  The former mayor, Steve Reed, basically misappropriated taxpayer funds to buy the artifacts for that museum.  Not to mention, the museum itself isn't doing so well financially.  It has nothing at all to do with the flag, and the Gettysburg museum is still open for business.

http://abc27.com/2015/07/14/city-leaders-urge-closing-of-civil-war-museum-other-measures-to-move-harrisburg-forward/

[Callie Del Noire]

Thank you, that was NOT what I had heard.

[consortium11]

The former mayor, Steve Reed, basically misappropriated taxpayer funds to buy the artifacts for that museum.

He didn't.

While there's a lot of evidence (I'd suggest overwhelming) that Reed was deeply, deeply corrupt and ego driven there's no allegations that the artifacts in the civil war museum were obtained in anything but the proper way (unlike with the failed Wild West museum where the artifacts... since auctioned off to raise funds... were purchased as a result of public corruption). Its what the civil war artifacts (and the museum itself) aren't part of the charges against the former mayor and the attorney general bringing the charges confirmed that.

It's one of the reasons that the current mayor is very careful in his language. When he discusses the artifacts and agreements with the museum he talks about how "in light of" the other issues they should be reconsidered, essentially trying to connect the corruption to the civil war museum despite knowing that there's no direct link. In essence he's one of the "price of everything, value of nothing" types and is willing to be utterly disingenuous to get what he wants.



Edit: I should also add that the "the council closed the musuem and then activists snuck in and destroyed all the aritfacts" story that went round social media came from a satirical website. Snopes story here. As things stand the museum isn't closed and if it were to be closed then you can be pretty damn sure the city would be very careful in handling the objects... if they're destroyed they can't sell them after all.

[Oniya]

The point that you have overlooked in your verbosity is that even the discussion of closing the museum had absolutely nothing to do with the Confederate Battle Flag or eliminating it from history.

[consortium11]

The point that you have overlooked in your verbosity is that even the discussion of closing the museum had absolutely nothing to do with the Confederate Battle Flag or eliminating it from history.

While I don't particularly want to pick a fight here I'd suggest that linking the the Snopes article that specifically debunks the idea that the museum was closed as a result of the flag controversy and/or that the artifacts had been destroyed and mentioning how the story comes from a satirical website can hardly be said to be overlooking that point.

I was simply giving some context in addition to that and correcting a minor mistake so people aren't misinformed if the topic comes up again.

[Cycle]

Well, I guess these two gentlemen were just wanted everyone to know how proud they are of their "heritage."

Yeah.  That must be it.

Wonder why they didn't tell anyone who they were.

No worries.  Looks like we have them on video anyway.

[HannibalBarca]

I've a lot of family history, as everyone does.  Perhaps what is different is that I know much of it.  It was recorded, and diligently kept by members.  My father's father was French Canadian from Bedford, Massachusetts, and he could trace his first ancestor who arrived in Canada from France in the 1600s.  My father's mother was a North Dakota Blackfoot tribeswoman.  On my mother's side, I have Italian, Welsh, Socttish, Irish, German, Albanian, and Greek roots.  Ancestors of my mother fought on both sides in the Civil War.  Her father came from the Midwest during the Dustbowl to California, just like the Joads in The Grapes of Wrath, and before that, his ancestors came from Ohio and Tennessee.

However, one thing that unites so many of my more recent ancestors and family members is service in the military.  My father spent twenty years in the Air Force.  His father spent thirty years in the Navy and fought in World War Two and Korea.  My other grandfather was a Marine in World War Two.  Two of his sons fought in the Army in Vietnam.

And all of them despised the Confederate flag as a symbol of traitors...of people who could not solve any problems within their nation as citizens, and quit on it...then took up arms against it to defend slavery.

I grew up myself in the military, and thus had occasion to meet many, many people from many, many places, in the US and abroad.  This meant I got to know other Americans who spoke of the War of Northern Aggression, not the Civil War.  People who stated it was fought over states' rights, not slavery.

Pray tell, what rights were those states fighting to keep?

The Dred Scott Supreme Court decision proved the lie of those words.  The rights of Northern states and the people within them to live peaceably and not be kidnapped and re-enslaved in the South were violated by that decision.  That's right--northern states with no slavery had black citizens who were abducted by Southerners they'd escaped from, and were brought back to the South, against the laws of those northern states.  So much for states' rights...at least, the rights of Northern states.

As far as whether slavery was a reason for the war...just read the articles of secession the seceding states.

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:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

Seems like the people of Mississippi felt that slavery was the big reason even before the US Constitution was written.


Texas:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

I live in California, and have spent most of my life here.  Our attorney general, in 1942, was one of the prime motivators in rounding up and placing Japanese-American citizens in concentration camps.  This is an action to rightly be ashamed of.  Fortunately, this same man managed to understand the grave obscenity of his actions, and managed to do better in the future, when he motivated the other members of the Supreme Court to rule unanimously against segregation in Brown vs Board of Education.  This man was Chief Justice Earn Warren.  He accepted his failure in the past, and did something for freedom in the future.

I had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, and I am ashamed of them for it.  However, flying the Confederate battle flag doesn't represent sitting on the stoop drinking mint juleps.  Its very creation was as a symbol of white supremacy.  Its heritage is that of a slave-owning feudal system of inhumanity.  It was carried by and defended by men who were terribly fearful of sinking below free blacks in the pecking order of their society...a fear that was fed by their own masters, the very same masters of the slaves--the wealthy ruling class of the South.  That flag fell into justified neglect until it was reintroduced by the forces of segregation and racism in the 1950s.  If it symbolizes anything else to you, you need to straighten yourself with history and see it for what it is: a symbol of racism and of traitors to the United States of America who fought and died to keep other humans in bondage so that a small group of whites could maintain their wealth and power like the nobility of old.