Confederate Flag

[Wat_Tyler]

Meanwhile, there certainly are a lot of knotted knickers over what amounts to a scrap of fabric.


Marinate in that for a bit then.

 

[TastySuckToy]

No one here called for banning it.

Makes sense, given you undoubtably see the confederate flag as a symbol of strength, peace and unity, correct?

 

[Sign54]

The Jefferson Davis quote is real. That flag really was all over the place in the Capitol on January 6. Just what are you saying he got wrong?

Well, yeah. The guy saw Black people as subhuman and likely had heard of "Drapetomania", a racist "disease" where Black people run away from slavery(zero documents depict "happy slaves").

 

[YDB95]

Makes sense, given you undoubtably see the confederate flag as a symbol of strength, peace and unity, correct?

Of course not, but that has nothing to do with what you said:

So if enough people claim a flag is offensive and declare what it 'really' stands for, we should ban it?

Interesting implications.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Of course not, but that has nothing to do with what you said:

So then we are in agreement that is not how you see the confederate flag, and we also agree I don't decide for you how you see the confederate flag. Correct?

 

[YDB95]

So then we are in agreement that is not how you see the confederate flag, and we also agree I don't decide for you how you see the confederate flag. Correct?

Since I never said anything contrary to that, yes, correct. But the point is, no one except you said anything about banning it. (And I repeat, although I find that flag offensive, I do not support banning it. The better to let the racists make asses of themselves and let us all know who and what they are.)

 

[TastySuckToy]

Since I never said anything contrary to that, yes, correct.

Excellent. So then when others see the confederate flag a different way than you do, you will extend them the same courtesy and not impose your opinion about what it 'really' represents for them.

 

[YDB95]

Excellent. So then when others see the confederate flag a different way than you do, you will extend them the same courtesy and not impose your opinion about what it 'really' represents for them.

I said I opposed banning it, and I do. Again, no one here has called for that. Now, if I say two and two make five, are you going to respect my opinion and not impose your opinion of what it really is?

 

[Sign54]

Makes sense, given you undoubtably see the confederate flag as a symbol of strength, peace and unity, correct?

That's like saying a Swastika is a proud symbol of someone being a Jewish lesbian.

 

[dmallord]

It is a statement, nothing more. One that provides a rallying cry for those who choose to heed what it stands for.

That some believe is stands for racism, is on them and them alone because the history of the battle flag isn't that.

The civil war wasn't fought because of slavery. It was fought because there were (and still are) people who believe that tyranny is sufficient cause to stand up and tell the tyrant to fuck off. And they were willing to back up their words with blood and bone and their lives if necessary.

The South was unsuccessful in their bid for what they believed to be freedom. That doesn't mean it was wrong or that it was done for the reasons put forward by the racists of today who pin that label on everyone they can find in an effort to hide their own bigotry from sight. That the weak willed [sic] go along with it is why the South attempted succession [sic] in the first place.

What were the outcomes of that war? Did it achieve something that benefited being a united group of states?

People can go to war for the wrong reasons also: Johnson, Bush, Putin, not to mention the fearless leader who obliterated a country recently.

I’ll consider your response to be polemics, not outright advocacy for the Southern states’ slavery stance. The point you’re making is about people believing they were resisting what they saw as overreach. That idea has always been part of how Americans think about liberty.

At the same time, when you look at the historical record, especially the Southern states’ own declarations of secession, they consistently point to slavery as a central concern. The “states’ rights” argument does come up, but it’s usually tied to protecting that specific institution, particularly as new states were being added and political balance was shifting. Slavery was at the forefront of all those claims for states’ rights.

That’s why many historians frame it less as a broad philosophical stance and more as a conflict rooted in the specific economic and social system the South depended on.

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think this is where the discussion really comes into focus: how do you view the outcome of the war, especially the end of slavery?

It seems that question helps clarify how each of us interprets what the war was really about. I’d be interested to hear your perspective on that directly.

 

[dmallord]

Your college should revoke your degree then because YOU SUCK at it.

Forum decorum, oldster. Thou shalt not defame thy fellow thread poster.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Now, if I say two and two make five, are you going to respect my opinion and not impose your opinion of what it really is?

Mathematics is not subjective or opinion based.

Symbolism is fundamentally subjective and opinion based.

That you would conflate the two clearly shows how broken your thinking is; assuming your symbolism interpretation is the only 'proper' one and you tried comparing it to math.

What you just did was demonstrate your own brainwashing.

When I said I don't dictate your symbolism interpretation, you readily agreed. When I then said you should extend that same courtesy to others, you tried comparing symbolism to mathematics.

See the problem?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

The war wasn't because of slavery, it was for the right of states to allow slavery.
LOL.

Ironically the Civil War was fought over states rights. The South wanted to force slavery into states like California that didn’t want it.

 

[TastySuckToy]

That's like saying a Swastika is a proud symbol of someone being a Jewish lesbian.

No, it's like saying the swastika is an ancient sacred symbol of good fortune, prosperity, and the Buddha’s footprints. Derived from the Sanskrit word svastika meaning "well-being," it represents universal harmony, eternity, and the auspicious "seal" of the Buddha's teachings.

Funny how symbolism is very subjective, isn't it?

 

[Baztrachian]

At the same time, when you look at the historical record, especially the Southern states’ own declarations of secession, they consistently point to slavery as a central concern. The “states’ rights” argument does come up, but it’s usually tied to protecting that specific institution, particularly as new states were being added and political balance was shifting. Slavery was at the forefront of all those claims for states’ rights.

The increasing power of the Federal government was the central concern of the states that seceded. Slavery was just the flashpoint and the central point that 180 years of Northern-educated historians chose to highlight. The old adage of The Victors Write The History being true.

The US in 1859 was not unlike the European Union in 2026 where the prevailing notion was that member states could leave the broader association if they so chose to do so.

Thus prior to the outcome of the civil war the USA was referred to in the plural as the United States. Afterwards it was referred to in the singular as The United States.

Federal supremacy and Federal dominance was established in the outcome of the civil war and upheld in law and in court ever since.

Quite laughingly, these days it's the Democrat-Communist states who are talking about secession and state's rights over the issues of Voter ID, gun control, taxation, speech regulation, DEI, transgenderism, and illegal immigration.

Ever since the Wilson Administration they were the champions of Federal supremacy and Federal dominance and now they are hoist upon their own petard.

Can't wait to see you people secede again. It'll be fun.

 

[Baztrachian]

Ironically the Civil War was fought over states rights. The South wanted to force slavery into states like California that didn’t want it.

Funny thing is that slavery did exist in California for a time. Saving you a bunch of reading here it wasn't expressly legal nor was it expressly illegal. It existed in some areas of the territory-state and not others.

 

[Lazaran]

The increasing power of the Federal government was the central concern of the states that seceded. Slavery was just the flashpoint and the central point that 180 years of Northern-educated historians chose to highlight. The old adage of The Victors Write The History being true.

The US in 1859 was not unlike the European Union in 2026 where the prevailing notion was that member states could leave the broader association if they so chose to do so.

Thus prior to the outcome of the civil war the USA was referred to in the plural as the United States. Afterwards it was referred to in the singular as The United States.

Federal supremacy and Federal dominance was established in the outcome of the civil war and upheld in law and in court ever since.

Quite laughingly, these days it's the Democrat-Communist states who are talking about secession and state's rights over the issues of Voter ID, gun control, taxation, speech regulation, DEI, transgenderism, and illegal immigration.

Ever since the Wilson Administration they were the champions of Federal supremacy and Federal dominance and now they are hoist upon their own petard.

Can't wait to see you people secede again. It'll be fun.

The shit racist MAGAts need to tell themselves…



We. Told. Them. So.

 

[dmallord]

The increasing power of the Federal government was the central concern of the states that seceded. Slavery was just the flashpoint and the central point that 180 years of Northern-educated historians chose to highlight. The old adage of The Victors Write The History being true.

The US in 1859 was not unlike the European Union in 2026 where the prevailing notion was that member states could leave the broader association if they so chose to do so.

Thus prior to the outcome of the civil war the USA was referred to in the plural as the United States. Afterwards it was referred to in the singular as The United States.

Federal supremacy and Federal dominance was established in the outcome of the civil war and upheld in law and in court ever since.

Quite laughingly, these days it's the Democrat-Communist states who are talking about secession and state's rights over the issues of Voter ID, gun control, taxation, speech regulation, DEI, transgenderism, and illegal immigration.

Ever since the Wilson Administration they were the champions of Federal supremacy and Federal dominance and now they are hoist upon their own petard.

Can't wait to see you people secede again. It'll be fun.

Youngster, you are so deep in the weeds even a giraffe can hide in there with you. I can’t get up to get to my history books in the library, but a little online research will suffice for your edification. Not that it will change your thinking, but at least I can say, in good conscience, I tried.

Let’s start with some basics based upon actual Southern states' declarations at that time; they aren’t vague about their core concern. These are words written by the men of the time, Southerners, not your historic revisionist history writers you claim:

• Mississippi’s Declaration (1861): “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery… a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”
• South Carolina’s Declaration complains that Northern states refuse to uphold the Fugitive Slave Law, i.e., they won’t help return escaped enslaved people, and concludes that these states “have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.” The core grievance is about the protection of slavery.
• Texas’s Declaration defends slavery and white supremacy explicitly: it denounces the idea of equality between Black and white people as “an insult to nature” and praises the “beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery.”
• Georgia’s Declaration makes the economic link crystal clear: “For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States… because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us, not only to the loss of our property in slaves, but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children.”
• Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice President, in the 1861 “Cornerstone Speech,” goes even further: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [of equality]… its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery… is his natural and normal condition.”

So, if you are buying that line about slavery just being a flashpoint and not the primafacia evidence for the secession, you're wrong. The above are just a few quotes from those declarations of secession. You can find more. Find them in the authors of your choice, probably.

“States’ rights” absolutely appears—but overwhelmingly as the right to maintain and expand slavery, especially into new territories and states as the political balance shifted. In other words, the “rights” in question were not some generic constitutional abstraction; they were very specifically about the legal right to own human beings and protect that system from perceived federal interference.

The point about “the victors write the history” is a popular slogan, but it runs into a simple problem here: the primary sources from 1860–61 weren’t written by Northern professors; they were written by the very Southern leaders you’re defending. If the central concern had truly been federal tariffs or a neutral theory of decentralization, they had every opportunity to say so. Instead, they kept coming back to slavery. Tariffs and the power of the federal government were the minor issues, not the major ones. Slavery permeates all those documents. Read them.

Modern grievances about “Democrat‑Communist states,” DEI, transgender issues, etc., are a separate 21st‑century culture‑war fight. You can dislike federal policy now if you want, but that doesn’t rewrite what the Confederates actually said in 1860–61 about why they were leaving. You're attempting some wild obfuscation there. You're off in the weeds, dragging in topics not germane to the theme you rant about.

If we’re going to argue about history, the baseline should be what the actors of the time wrote and did, not just what fits today’s preferred narrative.

So… go pound some more sand. Your jibe isn’t working. And now my fingers are sore.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Youngster, you are so deep in the weeds even a giraffe can hide in there with you. I can’t get up to get to my history books in the library, but a little online research will suffice for your edification. Not that it will change your thinking, but at least I can say, in good conscience, I tried.

Let’s start with some basics based upon actual Southern states' declarations at that time; they aren’t vague about their core concern. These are words written by the men of the time, Southerners, not your historic revisionist history writers you claim:

• Mississippi’s Declaration (1861): “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery… a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”
• South Carolina’s Declaration complains that Northern states refuse to uphold the Fugitive Slave Law, i.e., they won’t help return escaped enslaved people, and concludes that these states “have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.” The core grievance is about the protection of slavery.
• Texas’s Declaration defends slavery and white supremacy explicitly: it denounces the idea of equality between Black and white people as “an insult to nature” and praises the “beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery.”
• Georgia’s Declaration makes the economic link crystal clear: “For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States… because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us, not only to the loss of our property in slaves, but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children.”
• Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice President, in the 1861 “Cornerstone Speech,” goes even further: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [of equality]… its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery… is his natural and normal condition.”

So, if you are buying that line about slavery just being a flashpoint and not the primafacia evidence for the secession, you're wrong. The above are just a few quotes from those declarations of secession. You can find more. Find them in the authors of your choice, probably.

“States’ rights” absolutely appears—but overwhelmingly as the right to maintain and expand slavery, especially into new territories and states as the political balance shifted. In other words, the “rights” in question were not some generic constitutional abstraction; they were very specifically about the legal right to own human beings and protect that system from perceived federal interference.

The point about “the victors write the history” is a popular slogan, but it runs into a simple problem here: the primary sources from 1860–61 weren’t written by Northern professors; they were written by the very Southern leaders you’re defending. If the central concern had truly been federal tariffs or a neutral theory of decentralization, they had every opportunity to say so. Instead, they kept coming back to slavery. Tariffs and the power of the federal government were the minor issues, not the major ones. Slavery permeates all those documents. Read them.

Modern grievances about “Democrat‑Communist states,” DEI, transgender issues, etc., are a separate 21st‑century culture‑war fight. You can dislike federal policy now if you want, but that doesn’t rewrite what the Confederates actually said in 1860–61 about why they were leaving. You're attempting some wild obfuscation there. You're off in the weeds, dragging in topics not germane to the theme you rant about.

If we’re going to argue about history, the baseline should be what the actors of the time wrote and did, not just what fits today’s preferred narrative.

So… go pound some more sand. Your jibe isn’t working. And now my fingers are sore.

 

[Lazaran]

The increasing power of the Federal government was the central concern of the states that seceded. Slavery was just the flashpoint and the central point that 180 years of Northern-educated historians chose to highlight. The old adage of The Victors Write The History being true.

The US in 1859 was not unlike the European Union in 2026 where the prevailing notion was that member states could leave the broader association if they so chose to do so.

Thus prior to the outcome of the civil war the USA was referred to in the plural as the United States. Afterwards it was referred to in the singular as The United States.

Federal supremacy and Federal dominance was established in the outcome of the civil war and upheld in law and in court ever since.

Quite laughingly, these days it's the Democrat-Communist states who are talking about secession and state's rights over the issues of Voter ID, gun control, taxation, speech regulation, DEI, transgenderism, and illegal immigration.

Ever since the Wilson Administration they were the champions of Federal supremacy and Federal dominance and now they are hoist upon their own petard.

Can't wait to see you people secede again. It'll be fun.

Point???

Youngster, you are so deep in the weeds even a giraffe can hide in there with you. I can’t get up to get to my history books in the library, but a little online research will suffice for your edification. Not that it will change your thinking, but at least I can say, in good conscience, I tried.

Let’s start with some basics based upon actual Southern states' declarations at that time; they aren’t vague about their core concern. These are words written by the men of the time, Southerners, not your historic revisionist history writers you claim:

• Mississippi’s Declaration (1861): “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery… a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”
• South Carolina’s Declaration complains that Northern states refuse to uphold the Fugitive Slave Law, i.e., they won’t help return escaped enslaved people, and concludes that these states “have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.” The core grievance is about the protection of slavery.
• Texas’s Declaration defends slavery and white supremacy explicitly: it denounces the idea of equality between Black and white people as “an insult to nature” and praises the “beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery.”
• Georgia’s Declaration makes the economic link crystal clear: “For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States… because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us, not only to the loss of our property in slaves, but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children.”
• Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice President, in the 1861 “Cornerstone Speech,” goes even further: “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [of equality]… its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery… is his natural and normal condition.”

So, if you are buying that line about slavery just being a flashpoint and not the primafacia evidence for the secession, you're wrong. The above are just a few quotes from those declarations of secession. You can find more. Find them in the authors of your choice, probably.

“States’ rights” absolutely appears—but overwhelmingly as the right to maintain and expand slavery, especially into new territories and states as the political balance shifted. In other words, the “rights” in question were not some generic constitutional abstraction; they were very specifically about the legal right to own human beings and protect that system from perceived federal interference.

The point about “the victors write the history” is a popular slogan, but it runs into a simple problem here: the primary sources from 1860–61 weren’t written by Northern professors; they were written by the very Southern leaders you’re defending. If the central concern had truly been federal tariffs or a neutral theory of decentralization, they had every opportunity to say so. Instead, they kept coming back to slavery. Tariffs and the power of the federal government were the minor issues, not the major ones. Slavery permeates all those documents. Read them.

Modern grievances about “Democrat‑Communist states,” DEI, transgender issues, etc., are a separate 21st‑century culture‑war fight. You can dislike federal policy now if you want, but that doesn’t rewrite what the Confederates actually said in 1860–61 about why they were leaving. You're attempting some wild obfuscation there. You're off in the weeds, dragging in topics not germane to the theme you rant about.

If we’re going to argue about history, the baseline should be what the actors of the time wrote and did, not just what fits today’s preferred narrative.

So… go pound some more sand. Your jibe isn’t working. And now my fingers are sore.

Counterpoint.



Zero points for BazMAGAtian.



All the points for dmallord.





We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Hel_Books]

The battle flag is a symbol of war. That could be just an accident of history, like the least talented musicians sometimes becoming the most popular, but southern boys choosing a battle flag might be saying something more than southern pride. I suspect it's macho bullshit. Maybe what they really want is dick flags.

What they want was said in the famous "Cornerstone Speech" by Alexander H. Stephens of the Confederacy:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

 

[Bray123]

No, it's like saying the swastika is an ancient sacred symbol of good fortune, prosperity, and the Buddha’s footprints. Derived from the Sanskrit word svastika meaning "well-being," it represents universal harmony, eternity, and the auspicious "seal" of the Buddha's teachings.

Funny how symbolism is very subjective, isn't it?

The Buddhist swastika is horizontal, the Nazi swastika is tilted. The two are not the same.

Even if so, a flag is only painted cloth. It means something to the waver and may mean the same to the wavee. Like in the UK the St George Cross may mean a supporter of England Football at the World Cup, but might (usually) mean that immigrants are not welcome. Immigrants may see the flag shown outside a pub and decide that the place is likely to be occupied by Farage supporters with very short haircuts. They'll go somewhere friendlier.

It's all about messages sent and understood.

 

[Hel_Books]

Meanwhile, there certainly are a lot of knotted knickers over what amounts to a scrap of fabric.


Marinate in that for a bit then.

I'm guessing if it were limited to a bunch of re-enactors and cosplayers nobody'd care. But waving it while beating people with dark skins or smashing into your nation's Capitol might make a little difference.

Think about this, if someone waves a flag with the Hammer and Sickle, what does that tell you about their beliefs?

 

[njlauren]

The same goes for the statues of Confederate soldiers.

Yes,those came about around the turn of the century , spearheaded by that fine group the daughters of the confederacy. It was done alongside the whole noble cause nonsense, to reframe the Confederacy into some kind of righteous thing.

 

[njlauren]

Liberty has never depended upon protecting only those opinions that flatter the majority. Any petty magistrate can accomplish that. The true measure of freedom is the willingness to tolerate expression one finds distasteful, foolish, or even repellent. If a symbol is false, expose its falsehood. But do not enlist the police in the service of wounded feelings, because governments rarely surrender such powers once acquired. Every generation imagines that censorship will remain forever in the hands of the righteous. History, with its customary malice, has seldom obliged.

It is one thing to espouse unpopular ideas, it is another to support them. That Confederate generals had military bases and other government properties makes after them, that they had statutues to traitors in the capitol is literally endorsing what they did. The confederate flag should have the same reaction flying a swaztika does.