Is the Confederate Flag Racist? Options

[EmeraldKnight]

Oh, haha, i dont think we have that here.. maybe we do, but I'm kinda clueless, haha

[ComradeRed]

Oh, haha, i dont think we have that here.. maybe we do, but I'm kinda clueless, haha

Well their Grand National Tournament is in Boston, Puritan Hell, as opposed to Salt Lake, Mormon Hell, so I guess that's better.

Just think of them as the NFL's evil twin.

[EmeraldKnight]

Why evil?

[ComradeRed]

Why evil?

Have you ever heard of a not-evil twin?

Mostly, they're evil cause they have their Grand National Tournament during my school's graduation so our seniors can't go.

[EmeraldKnight]

Have you ever heard of a not-evil twin?

Yes, in fact I have

Mostly, they're evil cause they have their Grand National Tournament during my school's graduation so our seniors can't go.

Hahaha Yes that is me sticking out my tongue at you

[T00000]

um back on topic, i do think the confederate flag is racist. i live in the south as well, and i'm not black, but i still think it's racist. the flag was only used during the 4 years the civil war was going on. the flag was a symbol of rebellion- the south wanting to break from the united states. and why did they want to break from the US? Because the north wanted to ban slavery. it's a symbol used to fight for slaves. and most people know it's wrong, but the flag is representing a time when people in the south thought it was right, and were willing to die for it. okay i know that most the people who fought on the south were poor and from little shacks and didn't have slaves, but they were fighting for their side-- and their side wanted slaves. people in the south aren't using it to be proud of their heritage or whatever, because it represented a span of about 15 years of rebellion. that is in no way representing heritage. or at least any heritage to be proud of... But if you ARE proud of it enough to display it, that means you agree with their cause and are indeed racist. or at least agree with the south's old idea that slaves should be legal. which to me sounds racist, because it's stating that blacks are able to be owned and have no purpose of life other than to serve whites. the definition of racism is thinking a race is inferior to one's own. and to make a black a slave means you think they're inferior to you, and that they should be allowed to do your work for you and not even get paid.

[machinoman]

im sick of people bashing the south. the south shouldn't be judged by their actions, but rather by their inspiring notions of freedom!

[EmeraldKnight]

the flag was only used during the 4 years the civil war was going on. the flag was a symbol of rebellion- the south wanting to break from the united states. and why did they want to break from the US? Because the north wanted to ban slavery

No, you're generalizing a lot.. like I've stated over and over.. onli a select minority of the south actually were aristocratic landowners.. the rest didnt care about slavery.. it'd be like generaliztion the US as a bunch of wealthy corporate businessmen, which of course is not the case

it's a symbol used to fight for slaves. and most people know it's wrong, but the flag is representing a time when people in the south thought it was right, and were willing to die for it; okay i know that most the people who fought on the south were poor and from little shacks and didn't have slaves, but they were fighting for their side-- and their side wanted slaves.

Its not, they fought to defend their homeland.. if foreigner invaded your home, would you not fight against them, regardless of what label politicians placed on your side? the politicians perhaps advocated slavery, but the common soldier did not

people in the south aren't using it to be proud of their heritage or whatever, because it represented a span of about 15 years of rebellion.

So that 15 years just disappears from history, as if it never happened? if it didnt, its part of their heritage, you cannot selectively disregard the parts of history you dont like

that is in no way representing heritage. or at least any heritage to be proud of... But if you ARE proud of it enough to display it, that means you agree with their cause and are indeed racist

... so by being proud of the American flag during WWII would make you racist against Japanese? since the US did send thousands of Japanese into internment camps and discriminate against them.. so if you're proud of American history in general, you're racist? that's basically what you're saying.. think of what the US did to all the Native Americans, they invaded, killed them, and sent them to camps to make way for their settlers, is that not racist?

the definition of racism is thinking a race is inferior to one's own

by your definition and your argument.. its racist to be proud of American history

or at least agree with the south's old idea that slaves should be legal

Like i have stated endlessly.. it was just a select minority.. the majority either fought for their homeland (and had no control over what their politicians did) or were drafted (if they refused, they were killed) so what could they do? several of the foremost southern leaders werent in favor of slavery.. take Robert E. Lee, the foremost leader/general in the south, he was against slavery but did what his homeland requested of him

[machinoman]

Its not, they fought to defend their homeland.. if foreigner invaded your home, would you not fight against them, regardless of what label politicians placed on your side? the politicians perhaps advocated slavery, but the common soldier did not

no... they fought to seperate from the union. not exactly a defensive move.

[juliar]

um back on topic, i do think the confederate flag is racist.  i live in the south as well, and i'm not black, but i still think it's racist.  the flag was only used during the 4 years the civil war was going on.  the flag was a symbol of rebellion- the south wanting to break from the united states.  and why did they want to break from the US?  Because the north wanted to ban slavery.  it's a symbol used to fight for slaves.  and most people know it's wrong, but the flag is representing a time when people in the south thought it was right, and were willing to die for it.  okay i know that most the people who fought on the south were poor and from little shacks and didn't have slaves, but they were fighting for their side-- and their side wanted slaves.  people in the south aren't using it to be proud of their heritage or whatever, because it represented a span of about 15 years of rebellion.  that is in no way representing heritage.  or at least any heritage to be proud of... But if you ARE proud of it enough to display it, that means you agree with their cause and are indeed racist.  or at least agree with the south's old idea that slaves should be legal.  which to me sounds racist, because it's stating that blacks are able to be owned and have no purpose of life other than to serve whites.  the definition of racism is thinking a race is inferior to one's own.  and to make a black a slave means you think they're inferior to you, and that they should be allowed to do your work for you and not even get paid.

The Confederacy did NOT want to secede because of slavery. They wanted to secede because of tariffs, because the North had more power in Congress. Slavery was a minor reason they taught to 3rd graders so that they wouldnt be confused about life then.
Yes, it's a symbol of rebellion.
Yea they thought slavery was right back then, but earlier than that the North did too. The whole of America used to be pro-slavery. Our American flag is bad?

Ah, Emerald owned you.

[ComradeRed]

um back on topic, i do think the confederate flag is racist.  i live in the south as well, and i'm not black, but i still think it's racist.  the flag was only used during the 4 years the civil war was going on.  the flag was a symbol of rebellion- the south wanting to break from the united states.  and why did they want to break from the US?  Because the north wanted to ban slavery.  it's a symbol used to fight for slaves.  and most people know it's wrong, but the flag is representing a time when people in the south thought it was right, and were willing to die for it.  okay i know that most the people who fought on the south were poor and from little shacks and didn't have slaves, but they were fighting for their side-- and their side wanted slaves.  people in the south aren't using it to be proud of their heritage or whatever, because it represented a span of about 15 years of rebellion.  that is in no way representing heritage.  or at least any heritage to be proud of... But if you ARE proud of it enough to display it, that means you agree with their cause and are indeed racist.  or at least agree with the south's old idea that slaves should be legal.  which to me sounds racist, because it's stating that blacks are able to be owned and have no purpose of life other than to serve whites.  the definition of racism is thinking a race is inferior to one's own.  and to make a black a slave means you think they're inferior to you, and that they should be allowed to do your work for you and not even get paid.

For the record, the North never wanted to ban slavery until 1863, and even then as a political move.

NEVER did Lincoln advocate banning slavery. EVER.

"If I could save the Union and free the slaves, I would do that. If I could save the Union and free no slaves, I would do that. And if I could save the Union and free some slaves while leaving others alone, I would do that too."
--Lincoln, 1862--after the war already started.

The AMERICAN flag is a symbol of rebellion! We broke away from the grand old British Empire!

And aside from slavery, the Confederacy has a lot to be proud of. They created a Constitution and enforced it much better than the Union did. The average Confederate soldier had fair officesr and enjoyed much more freedom than the average Union soldier who usually had corrupt officers.

Machinoman, seceding from an existing country IS definitionally a defensive move. When you secede, you nullify oppressive laws that are aimed against you. You are NOT seeking to inavde the other country.

Did the South want to conquer Washington? No. They just wanted to be left alone.

[machinoman]

Machinoman, seceding from an existing country IS definitionally a defensive move. When you secede, you nullify oppressive laws that are aimed against you. You are NOT seeking to inavde the other country.

I never claimed it was an offensive move; I'm just saying attacking the north for not agreeing with their policies in order to seperate from them is about as defensive as kicking someone you disagree with.

[ComradeRed]

I never claimed it was an offensive move; I'm just saying attacking the north for not agreeing with their policies in order to seperate from them is about as defensive as kicking someone you disagree with.

The North attacked first. After a state of war is declared the South had the right to invade the North TO GET THE NORTH TO SUE FOR PEACE. The invasion of Pennsylvania wasn't to conquer land, it was to destroy northern morale.

It would have been defensive of teh American Colonists to land an army in Great Britain to force George III to move his armies back home and stop attacking the US.

[machinoman]

The North attacked first. After a state of war is declared the South had the right to invade the North TO GET THE NORTH TO SUE FOR PEACE. The invasion of Pennsylvania wasn't to conquer land, it was to destroy northern morale.

It would have been defensive of teh American Colonists to land an army in Great Britain to force George III to move his armies back home and stop attacking the US.

Ahhh... so when fighting is appropriate, like in boxing, the first blow acts as a defensive maneuver. It was a little hard to grasp at first, but now I got it.

Also, the north never declared war against the south, the first move was southern.

[ComradeRed]

Ahhh... so when fighting is appropriate, like in boxing, the first blow acts as a defensive maneuver. It was a little hard to grasp at first, but now I got it.

Also, the north never declared war against the south, the first move was southern.

Lincoln sent troops to reinforce Ft. Sumter in order to blockade Charleston Harbor. According to modern rules of warfare, a blockade constitutes a declaration of war.

[machinoman]

Lincoln sent troops to reinforce Ft. Sumter in order to blockade Charleston Harbor. According to modern rules of warfare, a blockade constitutes a declaration of war.

The blockade was declared on April 19, 1861.
The first shots of the Civil War were fired by Confederate guns on Fort Johnson in the morning of April 12, 1861. I was there. How could you be so right about Allah and so wrong about this?

[ComradeRed]

The blockade was declared on April 19, 1861.
The first shots of the Civil War were fired by Confederate guns on Fort Johnson in the morning of April 12, 1861. I was there. How could you be so right about Allah and so wrong about this?

Yes the first shots were fired by Confederate gusn on Fort SUMTER. But the fort itself was blockading the port of charleston.

[machinoman]

It was a declared blockade yet. It wasn't officially a blockade.

[ComradeRed]

It was a declared blockade yet. It wasn't officially a blockade.

It was a blockade de facto.

[machinoman]

It was a blockade de facto.

You are a blockade de facto.


"There are three sides to every argument: The right side, the wrong side, and the bottom side. And the front side." - Anonymous

[EmeraldKnight]

What IS de facto?

[WhiteChocolate]

And ermm...didn't stupid Lincoln BREAK the constitution? Yeah. The worst president ever.

[ComradeRed]

And ermm...didn't stupid Lincoln BREAK the constitution? Yeah. The worst president ever.

De facto means IN FACT.

EVERY President broke the COnstitution. Lincoln is one of our best presidents, because he had the guts to try and fix it after it was done.

"It is better to tear a few holes in the Constitution and mend it later than to lose it altogether."
--Abe Lincoln.

Compare this to a president, say FDR or LBJ who simply believed the Constitution DIDNT MATTER. THEY are probably the worst presidents.

[T00000]

So that 15 years just disappears from history, as if it never happened? if it didnt, its part of their heritage, you cannot selectively disregard the parts of history you dont like

That's true, but out of the 228 years the South was part of the United States, people choose to display a flag representing 4 years of rebellion?

... so by being proud of the American flag during WWII would make you racist against Japanese? since the US did send thousands of Japanese into internment camps and discriminate against them.. so if you're proud of American history in general, you're racist? that's basically what you're saying.. think of what the US did to all the Native Americans, they invaded, killed them, and sent them to camps to make way for their settlers, is that not racist?

it's impossible for me to be racist against Japanese, because I am Japanese. But besides that, the American flag wasn't designed during the internment of the Japanese, and the American flag didn't represent their quest to keep one race under the control of another.

-quote-the definition of racism is thinking a race is inferior to one's own-unquote-


by your definition and your argument.. its racist to be proud of American history

No because "American" isn't a race.

Like i have stated endlessly.. it was just a select minority.. the majority either fought for their homeland (and had no control over what their politicians did) or were drafted (if they refused, they were killed) so what could they do? several of the foremost southern leaders werent in favor of slavery.. take Robert E. Lee, the foremost leader/general in the south, he was against slavery but did what his homeland requested of him

True, the war was not all about slavery. But when you say they fought for their homeland, you must realize that their homeland was the United States of America, and that their fight was not in defense, but was one forcibly rebelling against their own country.

The AMERICAN flag is a symbol of rebellion! We broke away from the grand old British Empire!

First, this isn't a question of REBELLION. It's a question of RACISM. Tell me how and when the American flag was a symbol of rebelling in order to keep blacks slaves with no meaning of life. The Americans rebelled from the British to be independant and free from ridiculous Brittish taxes. True, the South's arguement was not ALL about slavery, but slavery was PART of the reason of erecting the flag, and the factor that sparked the differences between the two sides.

And the flag is a symbol of the South's quest for independence- because the North WAS trying to abolish slavery, many people in the North were. The South got angered because new states were being developed, and there was always a battle between whether or not the state would be a slave state or a free state. The South feared that if there were more free states than slave states, congress would vote to abolish slavery. This was one of the main reasons why South Carolina basically began the war by seceeding from the Union. This is why slavery was a major contributing factor in this war.

Now I will say again, "Racism" is thinking a race is inferior to their own. This thread is about racism. Now who will argue against the fact that by enslaving a particular race and making them work for no pay, and treating them like animals is racism? Who disagrees? Displaying a flag that stands for the South's rebellion is displaying a flag that stands for many things, but most of all, racism.

Ah, Emerald owned you.

Oh darling, I think not.

[ComradeRed]

That's true, but out of the 228 years the South was part of the United States, people choose to display a flag representing 4 years of rebellion?

Why do we display the old 13-star Ross flag, even though it represented 2 years of rebellion in our 400 year history? No one celebrates conformity. It's like in the stock market. Every day, BILLIONS of dollars change hands WITHOUT INCIDENT. Do we focus on that? No. We focus on the rare scandals like Enron. As I said, conformity is all around us. We don't have to celebrate it.

it's impossible for me to be racist against Japanese, because I am Japanese.  But besides that, the American flag wasn't designed during the internment of the Japanese, and the American flag didn't represent their quest to keep one race under the control of another.

You can be a self-loathing Japanese.

America's flag was designed during a Revolution, that was fought IN PART to protect slavery. England abolished slavery in the early 1830s, we waited for 30 more years. While slavery was not a major issue during the Revolution, it WAS an issue. It helped to actually convince teh Southern Colonies to defend New England (taxation without representation didn't hurt the Carolinas as much as it hurt Massachusetts, which was dependent on trade and such).

True, the war was not all about slavery.  But when you say they fought for their homeland, you must realize that their homeland was the United States of America, and that their fight was not in defense, but was one forcibly rebelling against their own country.

Their homeland was the land they were living on. To say that the Southerners homeland was the United States is like saying Kurds are Iraqis or Palestinians are Israelis, or that American Colonials were British. While technically true, it is STILL a defensive rebellion if all you seek is independence. We were technically British in 1770s and 1780s. The American Revolution was against our own leaders. That was the point. If it was against foreigners, it would be a war, not a revolution.

To sum: To say that Southerners were Americans in 1860 is like saying Palestinians are Israelis. It's technically true, but just semantically incorrect.

First, this isn't a question of REBELLION.  It's a question of RACISM.  Tell me how and when the American flag was a symbol of rebelling in order to keep blacks slaves with no meaning of life.  The Americans rebelled from the British to be independant and free from ridiculous Brittish taxes.  True, the South's arguement was not ALL about slavery, but slavery was PART of the reason of erecting the flag, and the factor that sparked the differences between the two sides.

As I mentioned before, slavery WAS an issue. Southern Planation owners supported the new country even though they were not being hit by taxes, which were mainly mercantile taxes. Why? Because they would have more control over the new government to secure slavery. Moreover, if you read the Constitution, it basically acknowledged (or used to, before the Thirteenth Amendment) the legitimacy of slavery: In one area, it prohibits the importation of slaves after the year 1808 but protects the status of slaveowners beyond that.

The highest law of the land supported slavery until 1865. It was ONE issue, not THE issue. Likewise in the Civil War slavery was ONE issue, not THE issue. I posted a link to a copy of the Confederate Constitution earlier... Reading the Confederate Constitution shows that, ASIDE FROM SLAVERY, the South was developing a system far freer and far more democratic than the North's system. That's why the South was in the moral "right" prior to 1863.

And the flag is a symbol of the South's quest for independence- because the North WAS trying to abolish slavery, many people in the North were.  The South got angered because new states were being developed, and there was always a battle between whether or not the state would be a slave state or a free state.  The South feared that if there were more free states than slave states, congress would vote to abolish slavery.  This was one of the main reasons why South Carolina basically began the war by seceeding from the Union.  This is why slavery was a major contributing factor in this war.

Abolition was a MINORITY MOVEMENT. Lincoln NEVER, EVER advocated abolishing slavery. In fact, Lincoln would most likely have vetoed any abolition bill, because he was most interested in protecting the Union. Lincoln proposed a policy of containment of slavery. The South was afraid of the slippery slope. When South Carolina's legislature voted to secede, there was STILL a sectional balance. New Mexico and Arizona were BOTH probably going to enter as slave states, to build a Southern transcontinental railroad. To say that, in lieu of civil war, slavery would have been abolished, is pure historical revisionism.

Now I will say again, "Racism" is thinking a race is inferior to their own.  This thread is about racism.  Now who will argue against the fact that by enslaving a particular race and making them work for no pay, and treating them like animals is racism?  Who disagrees?  Displaying a flag that stands for the South's rebellion is displaying a flag that stands for many things, but most of all, racism.

Displaying the Southern flag can also be displaying something that stands for Low Tariffs. Or an Independent Post Office. Or under-control Government Spending.

Slavery was only ONE of MANY issues at stake. The South feared a slippery slope that would lead to bigger government once containment was in place. The CSA Constitution reflects this year. The Southern Constitution contains EVERY RIGHT in the Bill of RIghts, and then some other rights that are SORELY NEEDED TODAY. The Southern Constitution restrained government to a much more effective level. With the Southern Constitution, we would NOT have a multi-trillion dollar deficit, huge entitlement programs, and civil liberties restrictions like PATRIOT.

Slavery was ECONOMICALLY DOOMED TO FAILURE. While the Southern Constitution has one racist clause in it protecting the rights of the holders of "enslaved negro persons", it was otherwise in my opinion a much more democratic Constitution than our own.

There were 15 major changes between the USA and CSA Constitution. Of those, only 5 had to do with slavery. Of those 5, 3 protected slavery, while 2 actually WEAKENED slavery by prohibiting further importation of slaves. The other changes set restrictions on government spending, required legislative supermajority on key issues, created an independent post office (which we FINALLY did 100 years after the Civil War), abolished legislative "riders" (this would effectively had killed the US PATRIOT Act) and set a one-term limit for President. THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO TODAY AS IS PATENTLY CLEAR TO ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE KIND OF STUFF THAT OUR CURRENT GOVERNMENT IS PULLING.

Here's the link to the CSA Constitution, with a summary of the major changes: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/books/co...n-csa-xtra.html