Does the Confederate Flag offend you?

SodaHead.com ^

[poetbdk]

Does the Confederate Flag offend you? http://www.sodahead.com/question/537677/does-the-confederate-flag-offend-you/ I came across this question asked at SodaHead.com that has produced a lively discussion with over 2500 comments. I thought I would post it here at Free Republic and see if it gets a similiar response.

[MayflowerMadam]

Not in the least. Symbol of states’ rights. I imagine that in five years it’ll be illegal to fly the American flag.

[NTHockey]

If you admit that the Confederacy was “conquered”, then it was properly “The War of Yankee Agression”.

I will counter your question with my own: “When has this country ever fought a war purely for conquest?” If your answer is “Never”, you give lie to your original question. If you answer every time we go to war, you are wrong for we have no “possessions” save those who won’t go away. And if you answer only to preserve the Union, then what good is a union of the coerced.

Deo vindice

[nanetteclaret]

National Education Association - teachers’ labor union

They promote and influence which textbooks get chosen for the classroom, which makes it very easy to choose revisionist history books for indoctrination of the children.

[nanetteclaret]

How can you say you are a native born Texan in this post and in post 121 say that English is not your first language? What is your first language?

[TomOnTheRun]

If you admit that the Confederacy was “conquered”, then it was properly “The War of Yankee Agression”.

Doesn't have to be. A victorious states can conquer another without it being a war of aggression.

Pretend for a moment that we went to war with Mexico because they started claiming American land as their own, building homes on it, and stationing soldiers. If we went to war to defend that land it would be a defensive war rather than a war of aggression. If we treated Mexico as a conquered state after and took steps to impose law and order to make sure it never happened again ... who would consider that unreasonable?

I don't think I need to point out that confederates were occupying federal lands and outposts.

And if you answer only to preserve the Union, then what good is a union of the coerced.

And what if they fought to preserve the rule of law? When I read the constitution I see no means of secession. Our fathers could have put that in there - they didn't. We could enter it at any time through amendment - we haven't. Do you think the southern states were prepared to accept the revocation of slavery at that time even if they didn't agree with it? I don't. Our constitution became binding as soon as 7 states ratified it - not all had to agree.

[TomOnTheRun]

How can you say you are a native born Texan in this post and in post 121 say that English is not your first language? What is your first language?

*grin* French & Spanish. I spent a part of my childhood in other countries where my parents worked and there weren't a lot of English speakers. When we came back to the border of Texas I was able to use Spanish many places so I used that as a crutch for many years. It took me many years of practice to get my American accent but it was worth it. Life is easier if you don't sound like an alien.

[TomOnTheRun]

I should also say my mother is French (from Canada) and my father is from North Africa. They are both American citizens now of course (and very proud of it!) but the language they speak around the home is mostly French. My mother’s English is especially bad. She just think’s it’s ok.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

[Gay State Conservative]

In a country where burning the US flag is perfectly legal and where the flag of North Vietnam once waved in the breeze like confetti I figure that anyone who wants to fly the Confederate flag can most assuredly do so without giving a *damn* about who may be "offended".

[Hot Tabasco]

In before the Yankee apologists.

I'm a yankee but no apologist.......I was never offended even after I was told I should be offended.

Maybe you should rephrase your remark........

[Colonel Kangaroo]

If Southerners in the 1860s loved the Confederacy as much as many claim to love it today, the Confederate regime would never have been conquered. The Confederacy wasn’t worth defending in the 1860s, so maybe its battle flag is not worth worrying about today.

[jessduntno]

“Great-grandpa was in Barksdale’s brigade from Ball’s Bluff to Appomattox.”

Then, was he was with them in the Peach Orchard and Little Round Top? That’s quite a history. God bless him.

[dcwusmc]

Not only “NO,” but HELL NO!

[NTHockey]

“A victorious states can conquer another without it being a war of aggression.”

I get it; like a tax imposed in this bill is not to be considered a tax.

“And what if they fought to preserve the rule of law? “

By all means, like suspending writ of habeas corpus, instituting a draft, creating an income tax and demanding feality to a federal government by the new states is preserving the rule of law.

“When I read the constitution I see no means of secession. “

It’s in there, next to the section on taking over the banking industry and the auto manufacturers.

“Our fathers could have put that in there - they didn’t. We could enter it at any time through amendment - we haven’t.”

Read your history. It was the Yankee states who first proposed secession in 1820. And then there is something called the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment. But don’t let that old piece of paper worry you.

“Do you think the southern states were prepared to accept the revocation of slavery at that time even if they didn’t agree with it?”

That argument is as worn out as saying there are 47 million people here who don’t have insurance. The facts (troublesome things, heh?) are that only 5% of Southerners owned any slaves. And it was Yankee traders who introduced slavery into the South. And the first black slave was owned by ... a black man.

“Our constitution became binding as soon as 7 states ratified it - not all had to agree.”

WRONG - Nine states had to ratify it; including NY and VA who were dead set against it. Those who did not ratify it were under no compulsion to become part of a union they did not want. Without VA and NY, there would have been no Union. Try reading the ratification documents of the colonies sometime. They are very informative. Especially the parts about the government derives its power FROM the states and that when government becomes oppressive, it is our duty to overthrow said government.

Sorry for the long post; but ignorance must never be allowed to exist.

Deo vindice

[Constitution Day]

I meant the apologists for the historical Yankees, of course. No rephrasing needed, I thought I was clear!

Thanks—

[TomOnTheRun]

Sorry for the long post;

No worries. I'm always willing to read and discuss. Others may be put off by length but it doesn't bother me. Hopefully you won't mind any length in my response... I'll try to address each of your points.

"I get it; like a tax imposed in this bill is not to be considered a tax."

You didn't actually respond to the argument or the example here. How about this: Were we the agressor against Japan in WWII when they attacked Pearl Harbor? Japan is certainly a conquered state. I believe that defensive wars by a victorious nation can result in conquered states and I've provided examples. Pithy responses aren't refutations.

It’s in there, next to the section on taking over the banking industry and the auto manufacturers.

Your sarcasm belabors the obvious - there isn't a provision for legal secession. There could be but nobody has successfully put one in there.

Read your history. It was the Yankee states who first proposed secession in 1820. And then there is something called the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment. But don’t let that old piece of paper worry you.

Does it matter who SPOKE or PROPOSED it first who or who took .. you know .. actual steps and actions? Remind me which northern state seceeded first? The tenth amendment certainly doesn't provide a legal basis for secession

That argument is as worn out as saying there are 47 million people here who don’t have insurance. The facts (troublesome things, heh?) are that only 5% of Southerners owned any slaves. And it was Yankee traders who introduced slavery into the South. And the first black slave was owned by ... a black man.

Again - you don't actually address the point I made. The point I made doesn't hinge on who owned slaves, who sold the slaves, what color of skin buyer or seller had, or what percentage of the population they were. I believe the southern states would have violently resisted overturning the long-established institution of chattel slavery for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with any of that.

Try reading the ratification documents of the colonies sometime. They are very informative. Especially the parts about the government derives its power FROM the states and that when government becomes oppressive, it is our duty to overthrow said government.

You are quite correct about the typo. 9 states and not 7. I've read ratification documents - and the federalists papers - and anti-federalist letters. There are a lot of good ideas in all of those. A lot of crap ones too. There was a variety of opinion as to secession rather than concensus in those documents. If I asked you to cite and demonstrate concensus on the matter I'd be willing to bet I could cite a contrary opinion from somebody just as involved in the process easily enough.

The impression I got from wide reading was that people felt a legal secession could be established if needed but if things ever went that far it was likely there would be armed rebellion. I also got the impression that they felt that rebellion would, if successful, restore the prior state of union & whatever liberty was lost. I suppose one could claim that the southern states attempted to do that but I think that would be highly contestable. I don't feel that was their intent.

By all means, like suspending writ of habeas corpus, instituting a draft, creating an income tax and demanding feality to a federal government by the new states is preserving the rule of law.

I'll try to go from the general to the specific here...

Generally speaking, terrible things are sometimes done in the effort to achieve a goal that is considered good. That doesn't make the goal a bad thing - it just makes the efforts undertaken to achieve the goal bad or morally tainted. I would have contested these steps even while opposing secession.

In the specific... I don't consider habeas corpus to be optional - even in war time or under extreme threat. The fact that an uncosntitutional law was passed or action taken does not invalidate the entire effort however as there are and were means of legal redress. Habeas Corpus, in particular, returns to the courts again and again which is the way the legal process works. The income tax was also challenged not long after and found unconstitutional. This is why we have an amendment permitting it now. The legal process worked in this case also. As far as demanding fealty ... I would consider that a sound practice for conquored states that had previously been in armed rebellion. Besides ... I've read that oath. It seems no worse to me than the current pledge we announce to the flag on a regular basis.

[NTHockey]

Your casual use of the term “conquered” is what separates us. I no more consider Japan a conquered nation than I do the Confederacy. Conquered,to me, is what Communist Russia did to East European countries. And try as they might, the Yankee government wants to treat the Confederacy as a conquered nation, but they won’t give in.

You are right in that there is no written provision in the Constitution. There is, however, ample room for secession in the Declaration of Independence. There is absolutely no difference between what was done in 1776 and what was done in 1861.

Most bothersome is your comment: “Generally speaking, terrible things are sometimes done in the effort to achieve a goal that is considered good. That doesn’t make the goal a bad thing - it just makes the efforts undertaken to achieve the goal bad or morally tainted.”

That is simply the end justifies the means and goes hand-in-glove with the situation ethics so prevalent since the 1960’s.

[TomOnTheRun]

It's been an exicting back & forth that I quite enjoyed believe it or not. I look ahead to the next time we switch. =D Your casual use of the term “conquered” is what separates us. I no more consider Japan a conquered nation than I do the Confederacy.

Might I suggest that it not a casual use of the term but rather a very particular use. I believe I understand your use of the word - I think we're just applying it to different circumstances. Other than that I think we are in agreement.

There is absolutely no difference between what was done in 1776 and what was done in 1861.

I do see a difference though. I do not believe that the Confederacy expanded liberty when it seceeded.

That is simply the end justifies the means and goes hand-in-glove with the situation ethics so prevalent since the 1960’s.

I was attempting to be very careful NOT to say that. The ends do not justify the means. Nor, however, do illegitimate means discredit a moral end. We are constantly tempted to sink to lowly means to achieve a lofty goal. If we avoid that temptation we bring honor to ourselves. While we dishonor ourselves if we sink to lowly means we do not discredit the ends.

[JHenselmeier]

Nope!

[Ditter]

The Confederate flag doesn't offend me, I find it quite beautiful. It is much deeper for me, the Civil War offends me. It should not have happened. Lincoln offends me because he could not find a compromise. Slavery was wrong but I do not hold the south totally responsible for it. Africans were sold into slavery by their own people, that's wrong wrong wrong. I am a Texan and I have ancestors who fought for the south but that does not make me a Confederate sympathizer. Both sides were at fault and a war should not have torn our country apart with a war that is still being fought today.