Replies

I don't think it's necessarily wrong for people to be offended by the battle flag of a revolt that tore the nation apart and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. No doubt, many of the offended Wisonsin citizens had ancestors who paid with their lives to put down that rebellion (just like I do). Regardless of the more modern associations with civil rights and Jim Crow, the fact remains that the Confederate flag is the banner of a vanquished enemy. Flying, say, Bismark's flag, the rising sun battle flag, or Saddam's Iraqi standard would be just as offensive, and, I would guess, not readily defended by many who defend flying the Confederate flag.

"Flying, say, Bismark's flag, the rising sun battle flag, or Saddam's Iraqi standard would be just as offensive, and, I would guess, not readily defended by many who defend flying the Confederate flag."

Important to note that the CSA was former states of the United States who VOTED to secede from the US, which made no specific provision allowing OR disallowing secession.

Rebellion implies an effort to overthrow washington, which simply wasn't the case. The seceding states said 'we are leaving.' Not 'we are taking over YOUR fedgov,' which is rebellion.

You need to realize the secession question wasn't just invented in 1860; it had been raised continuously in the 19th century and avoided by politicians who were able to work out arrangements to avoid it. Congress never clarified its legality to my knowledge, despite decades of having the issue raised, particularly with the status of new states being added to the union. Given the much greater prominence the states had with the identities of the citizens in how they identified themselves, I cannot imagine that it was widely believed that secession was illegal.

This seems somewhat different than the various flags of foreign powers the US has fought (and usually defeated).

"I don't think it's necessarily wrong for people to be offended by the battle flag of a revolt that tore the nation apart and cost hundreds of thousands of lives"

i would offer that blaming the south for the civil war exhibits a lack of understanding of the underlying political, economic, and social issues leading up to the 1860 crisis.

There are many good texts on this subject, the one that comes to mind off the top of my head is "ordeal by fire' by james macphearson.

"Flying, say, Bismark's flag, the rising sun battle flag, or Saddam's Iraqi standard would be just as offensive, and, I would guess, not readily defended by many who defend flying the Confederate flag."

This statement isn't true and you know it. Nobody in America would give a rat's axx if someone flew the flag of the Franco-German War of 1870-71. Nobody even got offended when you misspelled Bismarck, Otto von.

All that's going on with the Confederate flag is that one favored influence group, with the backing of the media, is slandering and attacking an historic artifact. What was once the Civil Rights movement is now the civil-rights industry.

...by the battle flag of a revolt that tore the nation apart and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

There was no revolt by the Southern states, they wanted to peacefully leave what had become an untenable situation with the federal government in Washington.

There was however an unconstitutional invasion of the Southern states by federal troops that resulted in the loss of thousand of lives on both sides. Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression is looked at differently in the South.

...the fact remains that the Confederate flag is the banner of a vanquished enemy.

Vanquished? Yes. Enemy? Well that depends on which side of the Mason-Dixon you're standing on.

Flying, say, Bismarck's flag, the Rising Sun battle flag, or Saddam's Iraqi standard would be just as offensive, and, I would guess, not readily defended by many who defend flying the Confederate flag.

Thanks for putting things into perspective. Unfortunately, there's a whole industry that specializes in justifying what would otherwise be the bizarre personal whim of an eccentric.

It's also laughable how people who want others to see this particular cause in the most positive light are so quick to pile on and attack the entire state of Wisconsin because someone there complained about this flag. That's not likely to win many converts in the Badger State or to impress the uncommitted with the capacity of some people in the pro-flag camp for drawing the kind of complicated moral distinctions that they want others to make.

Your ignorance simply knows no limit. How in the hell did you EVER manage to land a job as a tourguide in General Jackson's home with such a narrow-minded view? To compare the flag of MY ancestors to Nazi, or Iraqi, etc. flag is just ridiculous. They need to sanatize the whole house....

UNBELIEVABLE!

Please forgive me, but the War for Southern Independence wasn't a "rebellion"...the Southern states had just as much of a God-given right to secede & form their own government in 1861 that our Founding Fathers did in 1776. The truths that were laid out so eloquently by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence are ETERNAL, & they still hold true today (as a matter of fact, I'd love for the "blue states" to secede...that would make life that much easier for those of us who live in the "red states"!).

Flying, say, Bismark's flag, the rising sun battle flag,

Offended yet? Try this:

"the ensign is the same as today, white with a red disc slightly to the hoist with rays (16 to be precise) extending from the disc to the edges of the flag. ... The naval flag was introduced in 1889 and that has 16 rays extending from the Sun "Mon" to the edge of the flag. The flag was "banned" by the Treaty of San Francisco which prevent Japan from having her own armed forces, but in 1952 she started to build up "self-defence" forces. The naval forces readopted the naval ensign in 1954.
http://flagspot.net/flags/jp%5E.html

"I don't think it's necessarily wrong for people to be offended by the battle flag of a revolt that tore the nation apart and cost hundreds of thousands of lives."

I'm amused that you would place blame for the bloodshed only on those in the south. Have you somehow come to the conclusion that the southern states decided to succeed and then launched an attack against the north?

No! The forces of the North invaded the south and started a war, killing hundreds of thousands of citizens, in order to enforce the north's preferred set of boundaries.

That is a fact.