Southern Flag Opinion.

[TheZink]

See my above post. Also, no. Southerners should not be proud of their secession from the Union. Why should they be?

I never said Southerners should be proud, but calling a flag as a symbol of treason is silly. Almost as silly as saying Americans are guilty of treason to England. As a symbol of rebellion? I can see that more. Is there a difference? I think so.

The Confederate States actually tried to enter into a Peace Treaty with the Union, but the Union would have none of that. So were they really a threat to national security?

The state's right argument mostly had to do with the increasing population of the northern states and the southern states having a smaller and smaller voice in Congress. With a smaller population, their votes mattered less and less. Having decisions made a small region that affected the entire country was not in the South's best interest (and that doesn't even include slavery).

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Also, I think it's unbelievably silly to be "proud" of being a southerner, or a northerner, or what have you because you can't control what patch of dirt you're born on, and you didn't work to be born on that patch of dirt.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

I never said Southerners should be proud, but calling a flag as a symbol of treason is silly. Almost as silly as saying Americans are guilty of treason to England. As a symbol of rebellion? I can see that more. Is there a difference? I think so.

The Confederate States actually tried to enter into a Peace Treaty with the Union, but the Union would have none of that. So were they really a threat to national security?

The state's right argument mostly had to do with the increasing population of the northern states and the southern states having a smaller and smaller voice in Congress. With a smaller population, their votes mattered less and less. Having decisions made a small region that affected the entire country was not in the South's best interest (and that doesn't even include slavery).

I didn't say they were a threat to national security, I said that treason is bad when it is a threat to national security. Like engaging in espionage that could compromise the safety of the country and its citizens. Secession or, for example, defection to a country deemed an enemy to the United States isn't "bad"; but in the case of the latter it's certainly not constructive or positive.

But the South was also concerned for their right to suppress abolitionists like Addendum said. Slavery does enter the picture eventually, whether some people want to acknowledge it or not. And it's not an issue of "romantic" or pop history vs. "real" history. Slavery was a major factor in the issue of secession. Lincoln said "[T]his question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present".

 

[SuperFerret]

I'd say it's more relative. If it's the kind of treason that is a threat to national security, that's not neutral. And it's not neutral in the eyes of the government, since it's a crime and whatnot. But yes, there have been many, many instances in history where acts of treason were justified.

But the Confederacy was on the wrong end of the state's rights spectrum.

According to the US Code

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Doesn't sound that neutral to me.

As for the US flag being a symbol of treason to England, only if the US lost the Revolutionary War.

Illegal =/= immoral or wrong.

Also, I think it's unbelievably silly to be "proud" of being a southerner, or a northerner, or what have you because you can't control what patch of dirt you're born on, and you didn't work to be born on that patch of dirt.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I take it a step further and find loyalty to a patch of dirt to be equally silly.

 

[Addendum]

Illegal =/= immoral or wrong.

Nor is it neutral

 

[Spider-Who?]

Sigggh.

This thread is ******ed. Not for the idea of topic of discussion, but for most of the responses (though the past few have actually been intelligent).

First off, its really funny how hypocritical some people are being to the "Southerners". You damn them for being "intolerant of other people's beliefs and ways of life"; and then you turn around damn them some more for showing their own cultural pride in their own way.

You all make me think of Nigel Powers:

"There's only two things I hate in the world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures. ...And the Dutch."

If you're going to be high and mighty and preach about tolerance; its not a one way street. Be tolerant of EVERYONE or NO ONE.



Second, I wonder how many people actually know anything about the Civil War or what they call the "Confederate Flag".

The "Confederate Flag" didnt even exist during the civil war. It was designed in the early 1900s. Yes, it, like many other states flags and military ensignias, has motifs that are similar to flags that were popular in the south during the war, but the "Confederate Flag" as we know it DID NOT EXIST TO BE A REPRESENTATION OF THE CIVIL WAR OR SUCCESSION.

The damn thing isn't even really called the "Stars and Bars". Thats a different flag.

And to those who say "but the KKK uses the Confederate Flag!" Yeah, some have been known to use it, but look it up: The KKK (as well as the Aryan Nation) have the ACTUAL USA FLAG AS THEIR BANNER.

Ask any level headed person who doesnt have an issue with the flag and they'll tell you all the same thing: its a symbol of a heritage and free speech.



Now, about the Civil War.

First I'll ask you a simple question: If the Civil War was about slavery, then WHY WOULD 5 SLAVE STATES FIGHT FOR THE NORTH?

Lincoln really didn't give a **** about slavery one way or the other. His stance was merely "lets not have anymore states have slavery". The only reason he eventually freed the slaves during the war was so that Britain would see the war as being about slavery and therefore not help the South.

Also bare in mind that the North was not a "pro black" community. They had strict anti-black policies that Lincoln promised to uphold along with keeping slavery itself intact. The Underground Rail Road stopped in CANADA, NOT the Northern states due to their own prejudices against blacks. Infact, the Confederate Constitution allotted for the eventual phasing out of slavery, which, due to the Norths strong anti-black laws, would have made it hard for freed slaves to travel northwards prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.

The South actually had legally honest, moral and economic reasons for seceding, and even tried seceding PEACEFULLY. In the 1820s, the North, in its ever-increasing industrial-based economy, imposed the Northern Tariff onto the South; in affect causing the South to pay of 80% of the federal tariff revenue.

The South seceded for essentially taxation without representation, to get away from an ever increasingly growing federal government - which went against the Constitution, and the North attacked because without the South paying their taxes, they feared what remained of the Union would fail.

It is a well known rule that winners write the history books and that is exactly was has happened. The victorious North, not wanting the reason for the war to be forever known as economic reasons, forced the "it was about slavery!" agenda.

If any of you are interested in fixing your ignorance, here's some books you can read:

The Costs of War by John Denson
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey Rodgers Hummel
The Confederate Constitution by Marshall de Rosa

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Nobody is arguing against the nuances of the Civil War. 12th grade history pretty much made sure that all that stuff got covered. But you're sidestepping the fact that racial conflict was a major issue in America at the time, and to deny the ghost of its presence when talking about the impetus for the Civil War smacks of one who downplays the issue of racial tension as a roundabout way of dealing with ones own subconscious prejudices.

Also, like I said, cultural and ethnic "pride" is totally ridiculous. Be proud of something that you actually have control over and have worked for. Do I dig Irish culture? Sure! It's neat. But I'm not proud to be Irish American because quite frankly I had no hand in the fact that my ancestors were Irish. And they didn't work to be Irish. I'm proud of my SAT score. I'm proud of the fact that I'm attending a good college. I'm proud of the fact that I'm on the staff of the University paper. I'm proud of my tattoos. I'm proud that I beat Halo 3 in a day. But am I proud to be an Irish-American citizen from Philadelphia? Hell no. Because I had no control over the fact that I was born in the city of Philadelphia in the United States of America to people of Irish ancestry.

 

[Scarlet spidey]

<Snip>

Thanks, I wish I could write as well as you can. Would have helped me get my point across easier.

 

[Scarlet spidey]

Nobody is arguing against the nuances of the Civil War. 12th grade history pretty much made sure that all that stuff got covered. But you're sidestepping the fact that racial conflict was a major issue in America at the time, and to deny the ghost of its presence when talking about the impetus for the Civil War smacks of one who downplays the issue of racial tension as a roundabout way of dealing with ones own subconscious prejudices.

Also, like I said, cultural and ethnic "pride" is totally ridiculous. Be proud of something that you actually have control over and have worked for. Do I dig Irish culture? Sure! It's neat. But I'm not proud to be Irish American because quite frankly I had no hand in the fact that my ancestors were Irish. And they didn't work to be Irish. I'm proud of my SAT score. I'm proud of the fact that I'm attending a good college. I'm proud of the fact that I'm on the staff of the University paper. I'm proud of my tattoos. I'm proud that I beat Halo 3 in a day. But am I proud to be an Irish-American citizen from Philadelphia? Hell no. Because I had no control over the fact that I was born in the city of Philadelphia in the United States of America to people of Irish ancestry.

So you're saying you're not proud to be an American? I mean, you had no hand in being born here. You didn't work for it.
(I'm just kidding, settle down, jeez.)

 

[Sarge 2.0]

...'Kay?

 

[Spider-Who?]

Nobody is arguing against the nuances of the Civil War. 12th grade history pretty much made sure that all that stuff got covered. But you're sidestepping the fact that racial conflict was a major issue in America at the time, and to deny the ghost of its presence when talking about the impetus for the Civil War smacks of one who downplays the issue of racial tension as a roundabout way of dealing with ones own subconscious prejudices.

Also, like I said, cultural and ethnic "pride" is totally ridiculous. Be proud of something that you actually have control over and have worked for. Do I dig Irish culture? Sure! It's neat. But I'm not proud to be Irish American because quite frankly I had no hand in the fact that my ancestors were Irish. And they didn't work to be Irish. I'm proud of my SAT score. I'm proud of the fact that I'm attending a good college. I'm proud of the fact that I'm on the staff of the University paper. I'm proud of my tattoos. I'm proud that I beat Halo 3 in a day. But am I proud to be an Irish-American citizen from Philadelphia? Hell no. Because I had no control over the fact that I was born in the city of Philadelphia in the United States of America to people of Irish ancestry.

Wow, so because I have actually read real (yes, real) books outside of the class room and can therefore say with verifiable sources that political economics, not slavery was the main cause for the Civil War means that i have subconscious prejudices? Graspin' at straws much? (if thats not a pathetic and childish attempt to get me angry, i don't know what is). How do you know I'm not black? Or hell, the son of a native american and asian couple? You sir, are, as the kids say, "full of win".

You obviously didnt read my post, because I wrote a whole paragraph about the racial issues...

Also bare in mind that the North was not a "pro black" community. They had strict anti-black policies that Lincoln promised to uphold along with keeping slavery itself intact. The Underground Rail Road stopped in CANADA, NOT the Northern states due to their own prejudices against blacks. Infact, the Confederate Constitution allotted for the eventual phasing out of slavery, which, due to the Norths strong anti-black laws, would have made it hard for freed slaves to travel northwards prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.

Yup, definitely side-stepping racial issues, there. The point of my post was two fold: to clarify the intent of the Southern States' succession, which is a widely misunderstood and villified topic, when the North was just as guilty of prejudices and wrong doing; and to clarify falsehoods about the confederate flag.

And to look down on people for being "proud" of their heritage is, to use your own words, ridiculous. I see nothing wrong with someone feeling pleasure and satisfaction, or hell, even a little bit of self respect (all of which are definitions of "pride" - look it up) based on their heritage.

Yes, you can be proud for beating your stupid xbox game, yes you can be proud of your college. (Btw, by your logic, you couldn't be "proud" of your tattoos, unless of course you inked yourself.) You can also be proud of your culture, if it makes you happy. Why would you even care if someone loves a particular culture and derives pleasure from knowing they are a part of/continuation of it?

Your hostility towards cultural pride (a world-wide phenomenon) indicates a subconscious prejudice.

 

[SuperFerret]

This thread makes me sad.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

It's not a hostility. Just an observation of what I consider to be human silliness.

Your whole post is hilarious, so I'll get back to it when my sides stop hurting, but I'm pondering whether or not it's worth it because all I can see are the pontifications of a knuckle dragger who has deluded himself into thinking that he speaks from a learned platform. It's pretty comical. And since you assume that I haven't read or are unaware of the sources and arguments that you're pointing out, you're basically refusing to engage in any kind of mature discourse. It's cool though. I'll leave you to your perverse goal of being percieved as right. You're a shining light in this swamp of ignorance, yes you are.

Oh, and your attempts at insight are so totally off base and wrong headed that I was about to get offended and respond, but then I realized that I shouldn't be offended when stupid people say stupid things. You can't help it, since it's in your nature.

Keep bowing to yourself though. It totally makes you look mature, reasonable, and totally not egotistical at all.

I guess I can't help the fact that you still cling to the notion of cultural pride, but I hope you'll be able to join the grown ups who have left the stone age one day. It's a nifty place to be, I tell ya what.

 

[Marlboro Man]

For every person who opposes the confederate flag, think about this:

Do you have relatives who fought in the Civil War?

Did they fight for the North or the South?

If they fought for the North, do you wave the banner of the United States in their honor?

Why can't southerners wave the banner of the Confederacy in honor of their fallen relatives?

Why can't southerners be proud of their heritage?

Technically, the "Join or Die" flag was a sign of treason. But I see it all over the place in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Why should the confederate flag be any different?

 

[SuperFerret]

It's just a flag.

 

[Spider-Who?]

It's not a hostility. Just an observation of what I consider to be human silliness.

Your whole post is hilarious, so I'll get back to it when my sides stop hurting, but I'm pondering whether or not it's worth it because all I can see are the pontifications of a knuckle dragger who has deluded himself into thinking that he speaks from a learned platform. It's pretty comical. And since you assume that I haven't read or are unaware of the sources and arguments that you're pointing out, you're basically refusing to engage in any kind of mature discourse. It's cool though. I'll leave you to your perverse goal of being percieved as right. You're a shining light in this swamp of ignorance, yes you are.

Oh, and your attempts at insight are so totally off base and wrong headed that I was about to get offended and respond, but then I realized that I shouldn't be offended when stupid people say stupid things. You can't help it, since it's in your nature.

Keep bowing to yourself though. It totally makes you look mature, reasonable, and totally not egotistical at all.

I guess I can't help the fact that you still cling to the notion of cultural pride, but I hope you'll be able to join the grown ups who have left the stone age one day. It's a nifty place to be, I tell ya what.

WUAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, man, this post is great. So awesome, it should be smelted and turned into a crown.

Lets see the progression of our emails here:

Me: throwing out facts about the flag in question and the civil war because it seems some people might not fully understand the topic. i even include books from which these facts were derived from in case anyone wants to validate the information on their own time.

You: Instead of discussing ANY of my points, you proceed to write a long run-on sentence whose aim is to only insinuate that i am a closet racist. Yup, REAL mature. But, I'll give you credit for you comments concerning cultural pride, however that was not a direct response to what i was talking about in my post.

Me: I sarcastically acknowledge your attempt at an insult, and then address it with a quote from my earlier post, as well as attempting to continue the discussion in a "somewhat" standardized back and forth sharing of information/opinion concerning cultural pride (I say "somewhat" because yes, I did retaliate some what with sarcasm).

You: An entire post of insults accusing me of being a self-appointed "king of knowledge" -yet-oh-so-ignorant caveman and lacking any ability to properly debate.

Tell me, since you've so succinctly pointed out that we're unmatched in maturity and levels of productive thought and communication, how is it that I, the one who attempts to bring some kind of supported comments into a discussion, am the immature one, when, as anyone who can read will see, all of your responses were merely insults, as opposed to actual discussion?

Of course, i know its pointless to post any of this, because clearly, you are the better debater. Am I wrong in assuming you studied Debate at the Friars Club?

 

[Metamorpho1977]

The war ended in 1865 y'all. No need to start another one.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I never said Southerners should be proud, but calling a flag as a symbol of treason is silly. Almost as silly as saying Americans are guilty of treason to England. As a symbol of rebellion? I can see that more. Is there a difference? I think so.

The Confederate States actually tried to enter into a Peace Treaty with the Union, but the Union would have none of that. So were they really a threat to national security?

The state's right argument mostly had to do with the increasing population of the northern states and the southern states having a smaller and smaller voice in Congress. With a smaller population, their votes mattered less and less. Having decisions made a small region that affected the entire country was not in the South's best interest (and that doesn't even include slavery).

Seriously your argument is about a possible peace treaty with the country that they SEPARATED from.

Americans are guilty of treason from English Empire. That's not really a question. We as a people revolted and rebelled against our country which is an act of treason. We won the war and created our own country. When people rebelled against that country and started a war it was also an act of treason.

The difference is that we won.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Seriously your argument is about a possible peace treaty with the country that they SEPARATED from.

Americans are guilty of treason from English Empire. That's not really a question. We as a people revolted and rebelled against our country which is an act of treason. We won the war and created our own country. When people rebelled against that country and started a war it was also an act of treason.

The difference is that we won.

I don't disagree with either of you, really. Its all a matter of perspective. However, here's some tidbits for those who are interested...

The South looked at their situation and said "the government is no longer acting for our benefit. it is unfit to rule over us. we can rule ourselves far better than what the federal government - whose actions are slipping further and further away from the constitution - can do." In fact, most historians today are of the opinion that the initial peaceful attempt at secession was LEGAL at the time. In otherwards, yeah, the south saw themselves as revolutionaries for the 1800s, as the colonists in the 1770s; because their current government was no longer acting in their interest.

An interesting tidbit: there isn't any law that expressly prohibits secession. In fact, several of the first states (Virginia, New York, Rhode Island) signed the Constitution CONDITIONALLY; one of these conditions being the right to expressed right to secede. Also, the 10th Amendment states that anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed. And since nowhere in the Constitution does it say "No seceding!"....


Heck, when Jefferson was president, there was threat of a secession and this is what his thoughts were:

&#8220;Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the Western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the Eastern.&#8221; (Jan. 29, 1804)

However, Jackson had this to say:

"To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation.&#8221; (Dec. 10, 1832)


Sorry, I just find this stuff very interesting and love sharing info

 

[BlackLantern]

The South saying "the government is no longer acting in our benefit" - is that maybe because people wanted the South to stop owning people and forcing them to work their land because they were considered property and not people??

 

[Sarge 2.0]

WUAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, man, this post is great. So awesome, it should be smelted and turned into a crown.

Lets see the progression of our emails here:

Me: throwing out facts about the flag in question and the civil war because it seems some people might not fully understand the topic. i even include books from which these facts were derived from in case anyone wants to validate the information on their own time.

You: Instead of discussing ANY of my points, you proceed to write a long run-on sentence whose aim is to only insinuate that i am a closet racist. Yup, REAL mature. But, I'll give you credit for you comments concerning cultural pride, however that was not a direct response to what i was talking about in my post.

Me: I sarcastically acknowledge your attempt at an insult, and then address it with a quote from my earlier post, as well as attempting to continue the discussion in a "somewhat" standardized back and forth sharing of information/opinion concerning cultural pride (I say "somewhat" because yes, I did retaliate some what with sarcasm).

You: An entire post of insults accusing me of being a self-appointed "king of knowledge" -yet-oh-so-ignorant caveman and lacking any ability to properly debate.

Tell me, since you've so succinctly pointed out that we're unmatched in maturity and levels of productive thought and communication, how is it that I, the one who attempts to bring some kind of supported comments into a discussion, am the immature one, when, as anyone who can read will see, all of your responses were merely insults, as opposed to actual discussion?

Of course, i know its pointless to post any of this, because clearly, you are the better debater. Am I wrong in assuming you studied Debate at the Friars Club?

MMk. *cracks knuckles*

You kinda missed my point entirely. And totally misinterpreted what I believed to be a clear illustration of my thought process. So here goes:

You were the one who through the word "ignorance" into the dialogue and your original post reeks of hilarious righteous indignation. Do you want to know why I didn't address your posts? Because my point wasn't to dispute your posts, in fact I basically agree with you. Your original post was so bogged down in egotistical ridiculousness that I chose to respond in a fairly pointed, but not (I believe) overtly insulting way. You got ******** and decided to retaliate in a way that's the antithesis of mature discussion, so I felt the only appropriate way to respond was to be blatantly insulting. At this point I'd like to reiterate that I didn't disagree with your points for the most part, because you're actually correct. It was your overall tone of condescension that irked me. Now that's out of the way. Hopefully you see my point here. Shake hands?

By the way I consider the Friar's Club thing a sort of backhanded compliment, even though that clearly wasn't your intention. Although I don't think I'm quite as polished as Buddy Hackett or Dean Martin.

 

[Immortalfire]

The British invented most of that.

The south perfected it.

 

[terry78]

Just the good ol' boys
Never meanin' no harm

Beats all you ever saw, been in trouble with the law
Since the day they was born

 

[Spider-Who?]

MMk. *cracks knuckles*

Oh snap!

You kinda missed my point entirely. And totally misinterpreted what I believed to be a clear illustration of my thought process. So here goes:

your last post? hmmm...nope, don't see how that can be misinterpreted in the slightest.

You were the one who through the word "ignorance" into the dialogue and your original post reeks of hilarious righteous indignation.

The injection of the word ignorance was towards those who were out rightly acting like children, mocking southerns and damning their culture with obvious ignorance to the truth of the matter. if you read that word and took offense to it, that's your issue; it obviously wasn't directed at those who were actually being contributing members to the conversation (and i even praised those who were doing so at the very beginning of the post). Other than that, only thing i can see as "righteous indignation" would be that...well....um....that i included actual, possibly not universally known facts?

Your original post was so bogged down in egotistical ridiculousness that I chose to respond in a fairly pointed, but not (I believe) overtly insulting way.

Riiight. Because I shared a some information so those who kept making ridiculous (and false) statements would better understand the issue, that makes me supreme pontiff of the ass hole federation? Or was it that I was passionate about it that makes it egotistical? Your response to me that i was "sidestepping a major issue" and therefore was a racist. Insulting. But since it was "overt" it was mature and applicable?

You got ******** and decided to retaliate in a way that's the antithesis of mature discussion, so I felt the only appropriate way to respond was to be blatantly insulting.

First, I believe it was you who was "********" by my "egomaniacal manner", hence your desire to point and scream "racist!" Second, that intial post of yours (or ANY of them up to this point) was "mature"?! HA! I attempted to continue the discussion at hand each time up until my very last post to you. Yes, very, very immature for me. For shame! I think you really, really, really, need to look in a dictionary to understand what maturity is. Looking into anger management wouldn't hurt, either.

At this point I'd like to reiterate that I didn't disagree with your points for the most part, because you're actually correct. It was your overall tone of condescension that irked me. Now that's out of the way. Hopefully you see my point here. Shake hands?

And I would like to reiterate that whatever "condescension" (which looking back at my post, i can only see like two sentences where that was the case. the all caps words and such were merely for emphasis), were 1)not directed at those who were actually contributing to the conversation and 2) 95% unintentional. I think that you just have your panties in a bunch and were looking for a fight (ya happy now?). Irregardless, NOTHING i said was worthy of your immature, hypocritical and downright vile reactions. I'd hate to see how socially awkward you are in REAL life if a strangers post on the internet gets you this hot and bothered.

By the way I consider the Friar's Club thing a sort of backhanded compliment, even though that clearly wasn't your intention. Although I don't think I'm quite as polished as Buddy Hackett or Dean Martin.

What ever works for you. Could really care less.

 

[Sarge 2.0]

Irregardless isn't a real word and it's a logical absurdity.

Also, I'm not socially awkward, and you didn't get me hot and bothered. Don't flatter yourself.

You're somehow interpreting anger or whatever because I choose to be pointed and then subsequently insulting. I don't have to be angry to insult someone. Usually I'm bored or amused.

Apparently my attempt to make things clear and defuse things politely didn't go over too well. I'd hate to see how socially awkward you are if you can't accept politeness and instead choose to respond with more indignation. You sure do have lots goin' for ya champ.