The Confederate flag

[regwec]

The American flag is a flag of treason itself. If we don't want to be flying the flag of traitors, we should all be flying the Union Jack.

EDIT: Or the Mexican flag, for those in Texas.

You could at least have it in the corner, as George Washington did.

 

[NotFadeAway]

The American flag is a flag of treason itself. If we don't want to be flying the flag of traitors, we should all be flying the Union Jack.

EDIT: Or the Mexican flag, for those in Texas.

Totally different....we won lol

 

[SV Fan]

The American flag is a flag of treason itself. If we don't want to be flying the flag of traitors, we should all be flying the Union Jack

Yeah but the American Flag is a flag symbolic of treason to England. The confederate flag is a flag symbolic of traitors towards this country

That's a pretty stupid comparison

 

[NotFadeAway]

That too.....and again, we won lol

 

[regwec]

You should probably have put the French tricolore somewhere on your flag, with that in mind.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think a colony claiming independence to allow democracy is different from splitting a sovereign nation in half to continue slavery.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think each Southern state should have a referendum concerning its use on public buildings. A wide debate on it should be had, before people are asked to make up their minds. I fear that simply proscribing something, in response to a terrible crime, would lead many people who had felt that flag was part of their identity to consider themselves to be criminalised to some extent.

I really don't think individuals should be banned from flying it themselves. That would empower the flag too much, as a symbol of defiance, among the wrong kind of people.

As for retailers withdrawing products that feature it: that's up to them. Those who are offended by the decision can buy their groceries elsewhere.

Banning a flag is draconian but there's nothing wrong with pushing a treasonous and oppressive flag to the fringes of society.

The confederate flag shouldn't have mainstream acceptance.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think a colony claiming independence to allow democracy is different from splitting a sovereign nation in half to continue slavery.

Oh I'm not arguing that the South had good reasons to secede. That the flag represents slavery and racism is a MUCH better reason to dislike the flag than the treason argument.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Oh I'm not arguing that the South had good reasons to secede. That the flag represents slavery and racism is a MUCH better reason to dislike the flag than the treason argument.

But is a colony claiming independence really treason?

 

[regwec]

Yes, in the circumstances. The better question is whether it was just: most people on both sides of the Atlantic at the time thought it was.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

But is a colony claiming independence really treason?

Legally they were British subjects, so yes.

The situation with the American South in the 19th is actually more defensible from that standpoint as it wasn't clear in that case whether the Constitution allowed for a state to secede or not. The SCOTUS later ruled they didn't, but it was very much debated at the time and it was much more of a legal grey area than in 1776. Not just in the South either. New England threatened to secede in opposition of the War of 1812.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

But too much secession would allow the dissolution of the United States of America.


Losing a foreign colony because the natives want to rule themselves is far less damaging and far more reasonable.

 

[regwec]

The colonies sided with France while Britain was engaged in a world war against France, so it probably seemed unhelpful at the time. I think Southern secession from the US would be far more benign.

It won't come to that again, however.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

But too much secession would allow the dissolution of the United States of America.

Yes, but that's not the problem of the states declaring independence.

Scottish Independence would mean the end of the United Kingdom too. Does that mean the English government should invade Scotland and throw Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP in prison?

Losing a foreign colony because the natives want to rule themselves is far less damaging and far more reasonable.

Perhaps morally, but legally they were bound by British law. The US has done the same thing. Look at how the American government responded to the Philippines declaring independence in 1899.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The colonies sided with France while Britain was engaged in a world war against France, so it probably seemed unhelpful at the time. I think Southern secession from the US would be far more benign.

It won't come to that again, however.

It would be more benign if you took slaves out of the equation but they were very much part of the equation.

And then you have the situation where two idelogical enemies border each other which is a recipe for disaster.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yes, but that's not the problem of the states declaring independence.

Scottish Independence would mean the end of the United Kingdom too. Does that mean the English government should invade Scotland and throw Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP in prison?

But how much would losing Scotland weaken and threaten England?

Would it be anything as damaging as the United States losing the entire southern territory and the south becoming a potential enemy on the border.

 

[regwec]

In relative terms, I do think it's comparable. The fact that most of the UK's WMDs are housed in Scotland is a significant factor.

 

[Mightmitenot]

 

[redfirebird2008]

5 black churches burned via supposed arson within the last week. Basically zero coverage of this from the mainstream media due to everything else going on, in particular their obsession with the New York fugitives.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/emaoconnor/arsonists-strike-black-churches-across-the-south#.fhoXorzqvy

 

[Mightmitenot]

So I've heard WB are pulling General Lee die cast cars from shelves. Should The Dukes of Hazzard be given the Cosby treatment because of the car? I say it shouldn't, I was a Dukes of Hazzard fanatic as a child and I honestly don't believe the show was racist, and likewise, I don't think everyone who displays the confederate flag is doing so to support slavery or racism. I also think the media has paid way too much attention to the flag compared to the actual mass murder committed by Dylan Roof.

Dem Dukes was about tapping the Smokey and the Bandit market.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Honestly, I don't have that big an issue with two rednecks having the flag on their car. The issue is when the state endorses the flag.

 

[SV Fan]

Honestly, I don't have that big an issue with two rednecks having the flag on their car. The issue is when the state endorses the flag.

I have to agree with this, the flag should not be on State property(but personal property perfectly fine)

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I agree that it shouldn't be flown on government buildings. I don't think private residences should fly it either, but I don't want them prohibited from doing so by law.

I would have an issue with taking them down from museums and historic sites as I really feel our history is important, both the good and the bad, and shouldn't be erased. There is a big difference between flying the flag over Lee's HQ at Gettysburg and flying it over the State Capital. One is acknowledgment, the other is endorsement.

 

[dnno1]

Yes, this is more an issue of government speech vs. private speech. A government shouldn't be obligated to fly a flag that does not represent their mission or constitution. The rebel flag (also know as the Southern Cross or Confederate Battle Flag), was not even the flag of the Confederate States, but actually the battle flag flown by several Confederate army units, including the one controlled by General Robert E. Lee, who later distanced himself the flag and other divisive symbols of the Civil War saying that it was "wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war". The flag made a resurgence in the 1948 after Harry Truman supported efforts to end lynchings and desegregate the U.S. military. Prior to that it was far and few between when the flag was seen in public after the Civil War. To argue that it actually represents the heritage of the south is dubious since there there are so many negative meanings behind the symbol.

 

[Lantern Venom]

This is not a ringing endorsement of slavery. I detest the concept and practice of slavery.

I believe they had a right to contest what was going on in the government at that time as a result of the 10th Amendment to the constitution.

The 10th amendment states "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."

At that time the federal government was trying dictate to the states how they would establish rule of law. This was and still is (well should be) prohibited under the US Constitution. The states should have been allowed to stand up and tell the federal government to stay out of their issues.
.

*More American soldiers died in the Civil War than WW1 and WW2 combined, and the death toll might be much higher than the recorded tally.

*Disease and poverty were rampant during and for years after the war.

*About 1 in 13 soldiers returned home missing a limb, and therefore difficult to employ.

All of this was a reaction to states valuing their economic system--that relied on the abasement, torture, rape, and mass slaughter of millions of people with brown skin--over peaceful, more logical alternatives.

And I'm supposed to take pride in this? Even before volatile racists adopted it as a modern anti-government, anti-progress symbol, all it represented was one of the darkest times in American history.