Confederate Flag

[BadgerLordFiredrake]

Interesting article - http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-right-way-to-remember-the-confederacy-1436568855

[The Skarzs]

Regardless of my views on the flag, the Civil War was definitely a war over slavery. Slavery was the South's economic lifeblood at the time (Thank you, Eli Whitney), and they feared the addition of free states would cause an imbalance against them- thus they utilized an excuse of states' rights to justify secession.

 The northern states kind of pressured the southern states into doing what they did, because it was their way of life. What would they do without their workers? Taking away the slaves just like that would have caused a huge lull in their economy and life, which is why they did what they did. That and the government was trying to take what was rightfully theirs [citation needed], so it spurned them toward war.
 Slavery is a bad thing. I'm glad it is no longer a part of the US anymore, but I respect those men who fought for what they thought was best.

[BadgerLordFiredrake]

Regardless of my views on the flag, the Civil War was definitely a war over slavery. Slavery was the South's economic lifeblood at the time (Thank you, Eli Whitney), and they feared the addition of free states would cause an imbalance against them- thus they utilized an excuse of states' rights to justify secession.

 The northern states kind of pressured the southern states into doing what they did, because it was their way of life. What would they do without their workers? Taking away the slaves just like that would have caused a huge lull in their economy and life, which is why they did what they did. That and the government was trying to take what was rightfully theirs [citation needed], so it spurned them toward war.
 Slavery is a bad thing. I'm glad it is no longer a part of the US anymore, but I respect those men who fought for what they thought was best.

(please don't make this start a debate, but....)

So they fought for owning humans because they thought that was best?

[Norham Waterpaw]

In all honesty, I see problems with both sides. On one hand, I understand people's want for the removal of something that might be divisive. But on the other hand, many people still fly the Confederate flag. (I'm not one of them) and by removing it, it becomes even more divisive.
I am not siding with anyone here, because I personally think that blaming murder on a flag is... Kind of dumb.

I don't want this to light a powder keg, but I think the situation could have been handled differently.

[James Gryphon]

I doubt anyone can say exactly what long-dead people wanted.

Unfortunately for this idea, virtually all of the Founding Fathers wrote volumes of documents and letters clearly expressing their views on things. If people are still ignorant about this, it's because they can't be bothered to read a bunch of 230+ year-old papers for themselves, not because the information isn't there.

Saying that "times have changed" bothers me. It's a two-fold problem, I suppose -- firstly, it supposes that all change is good, and that newer is better. Secondly, it reminds me so much of the idea that the Constitution is a "living document". People interpret this to mean that politicians or courts can re-interpret legal documents at will, without having to amend them by the standard process -- just change what people think of a word in the law, and you can change how a law is carried out. This kind of assault on the psyche of the nation is pure chicanery, and attempts to substitute groupthink for a government ruled by actual laws. Any law that can be creatively and easily re-interpreted to suit the whims of a leader is no law at all.

Technology might change, but people don't. If you're going to change laws based on a clear and present threat imposed by new technologies (like unlicensed automobile drivers), then fine (so long as you actually follow the law in making those laws), but if the only thing that's changed is how people think about something, then I'm a lot more reluctant to start hacking up the system, if for no other reason than that the Founding Fathers spent a lot of time thinking about and studying all of this, not to mention all of their practical experience with leadership, and I can't presume to have a better knowledge of how a nation should be run without putting forth the same mental effort they did.

Tell me a single thing that the Civil War was about besides slavery (or something stemming from the debates regarding)

For Abraham Lincoln and the Union, it was about preventing states from leaving the Union, simple as that. The previous president, President Buchanan, believed that using military force to prevent secession was illegal. President Lincoln either disagreed with this, or felt that even if it was illegal, that it was more important that the nation be the way he wanted than that the law be followed (this isn't an uncommon view among politicians).

Granted, the only reason those states wanted to leave the Union in the first place is so they could protect slavery, but the point I'm making is that the Union would have fought them whether they kept slaves or not, just because of the secession. Not mentioning that this was the Union's actual motivation oversimplifies the war.

It is a part of our history, and history should be studied, not buried.

Well, we can study history without following in the same practices as our ancestors. By this argument, we could support flying Spanish or Mexican flags over Texas, and the British flag over the original colonies.

Not that I'm actually against that, mind you. If, say, Virginia wanted to fly the Union Jack, and their legislature agreed to it, that's their decision. I don't really see the point of it, but I don't see that it harms anything either. The question, then, is why they wanted to do this, whether that is based off of malicious intentions, and whether the flag itself is of ill repute. Here's an article discussing the raising of the flag in South Carolina; draw what conclusions from it you will.

The difference between the Confederate flag and, say, the Nazi flag (which it has been compared to), is that Neo-Nazis tend to either agree with the Nazis' views and/or gloss over what happened as "not being that bad" (in spite of the vast evidence to the contrary), whereas southerners, at large, acknowledge that slavery was bad, but just don't think about it. They've rebuilt the Confederacy in their minds to include everything they like about Southern culture, including the revolution from the Union (which, being composed mostly of Northern states, represents Northern culture, which has a history of clashing with Southern culture), while omitting the slavery. That perhaps shouldn't come as a big surprise, as the Southern states have gradually been rebuilt in exactly that manner, over the course of the past 150 years.

[Wylder Treejumper]

Well, the point I was trying to make is that one way or another, the slavery issue had to be decided. The reason the Civil War was about slavery is that without the resolution of the slavery issue, the U.S. simply could not exist the way it had before and the way it has since. Either all must be under common law of one principle or another, or the Union must needs be split. Such an important principle on whether a slave is a person or property, so near to the founding principles of the nation, could not simply exist undecided in the united nation. Without slavery, the Civil War would not have happened. Therefore, the Civil War was fought over slavery.

[Delthion]

And all resistance against the Gryphon is crushed by his eloquence!

[Jetthebinturong]

If, say, Virginia wanted to fly the Union Jack...

Union Flag. It's only the Union Jack when flown at sea.

[James Gryphon]

Union Flag. It's only the Union Jack when flown at sea.

The claim that the term Union Jack properly refers only to naval usage has been disputed, following historical investigations by the Flag Institute in 2013.

[The Skarzs]

So they fought for owning humans because they thought that was best?

  The "[citation needed]" was rather important, sir. I imagine it would be the same effect as if the government tried to take our guns. Would we not fight for that which is ours, just as they did theirs? Regardless of the morality of owning slaves, the did own them at the time, so they were their masters' possessions.

[Delthion]

Is "citation needed" the filter?

[Gonff the Mousethief]

I think really that the flag was to stand for a new nation that was separate from the United States at the time. Yes, they were "The South", but they wanted to be new country. The flag stands for that. Since they are part of the U S of A, there is no need for a flag for that nation. It is history, and is a symbol of what could have been if Lincoln and his generals hadn't won he war. Still, flying it means that they used to be separate, but not anymore, so flying it could go either way, saying "We are a southern state who used to be separate", or "We still feel Independent." Hope that made sense.

One other thing: Like James said about "Times have Changed", people are still acting the same way, getting into fights, being self centered, and more human nature. People aren't getting past that, so saying "Times have Changed" is true, we are not in the 1920's any more, but we are still acting the same way we did then.

[The Skarzs]

Is "citation needed" the filter?

No, I meant that the slaves were owned, but that doesn't mean it was right to do so.

[Blaggut]

We shouldn't have religion in government buildings or schools. The majority of founding fathers were diests. (The belief that nature itself is god.) Which is technically a form of atheism/non-thiesm.

[Izeroth]

We shouldn't have religion in government buildings or schools. The majority of founding fathers were diests. (The belief that nature itself is god.) Which is technically a form of atheism/non-thiesm.

Actually, Deism is belief in a God, but not in the full beliefs of organized religion. This thread isn't about religion, though: it's about the Confederate flag.

So they fought for owning humans because they thought that was best?

  The "[citation needed]" was rather important, sir. I imagine it would be the same effect as if the government tried to take our guns. Would we not fight for that which is ours, just as they did theirs? Regardless of the morality of owning slaves, the did own them at the time, so they were their masters' possessions.

There's a difference, though: guns aren't human beings. Slaves weren't just "possessions"; they were actual people. People with basic freedoms and rights, just like everyone else. I don't think the slave-owners ever had any right to own slaves, and therefore, had no right to protest or fight against the loss of slaves.