An archaic symbol of the losing side of a terrible war.
In fact, respect for the Confederate heritage, until very recent political agitation, was a near universal American sentiment. The Confederate battle flag was carried by fighting men in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. The display of our flag has been officially supported by the organized descendants of Union veterans. Shelby Foote, the greatest historian of the war, has publicly endorsed leaving our flag alone, a weight of authority greater than many ordinary historians put together.
How can a symbol be archaic when it is as relevant today as it ever was regarding the contract made between the people of America and its government?
Not archaic. Historical. Best viewed in context.
I am a Southerner, and proud of that heritage. Which is why I take issue with folks who try to claim that the four years 1861-1865 are the sum total of that 200-year heritage (longer, in many cases).
I do not engage in re-fighting the War of Northern Aggression, because it's over since my great-great grandfather was a child, and I'm honestly tired of the arguments. The reason so many folks find the confederate battle flag objectionable relates not to its use in 1865, but in 1956. The history of the CSA is not relevant to the instant question.
If folks wanted to make that flag an emblem of freedom, they should have brought them to march aside Dr. King as he approached the Edmond Pettus Bridge. King was a Southerner, as were most of his followers. He was an Atlantan, as am I. His legacy is tied to mine. If I met him today, we'd be folks, eating at the same restaurants, driving or walking down the same streets.