Is Confederate flag a symbol of hate?

An apt analogy that I will presciently say will be counter argued by the outrage of slavery which I have already countered by the acceptance of slavery by two of it’s states in the North.
I refer the matter to Jefferson who dealt with secession in the Declaration of Independence.
No one questioned that until it became inconvenient.
The North was simply hypocritical.
Who can deny this?

 

As stated, the United States - not even the colonies invented slavery. The Muslims have practiced it for eons, but we allow them to come here and we respect their Rights. It is a luxury we do not extend to our own citizenry. Adding insult to injury, nobody ever talks about holding the blacks who sold their brethren into slavery accountable. We dare not identify the slave traders and demand accountability. We do not condemn slavery beyond our own borders.

People claim that slavery is somehow immoral, evil, and one guy tries to claim treasonous. I submit to you that it is a fact of life. It is neither good OR evil. It just is. In the Bible Abraham owned slaves. Did God tolerate it? And, in biblical times a man would sell himself into indentured servitude for a period of time to earn a lady's hand in marriage from the father. We STILL have the custom of asking a father's permission to marry his daughter and the father walks the bride down the aisle to "give" the bride.

The American people accept the illegally ratified 16th Amendment (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) and let the government steal a portion of our wages. Here, this guy can explain it and entertain you much better than I can:



Democrats want to force upon us socialized medicine. They want the haves to pay for the have nots medical costs. So, if I'm working and another guy wants to, the non-worker simply has the government take my money for his health care. HOW is that different from slavery?

If I started listing the ways the American people have accepted slavery - and even demanded it, this would be really long thread. I'll just end with one example that proves my point:

Many companies only hire through employment agencies. The guy at the employment office sits on his backside and the employers go to him. The employment agency provides workers and they make their money off a percentage of the workers earnings. Now, I'm perfectly capable of going to an employer and applying for a job. Why are we forced to go through a middle man that gets a percentage of our wages for weeks, months, and even years? It's because our society accepts slavery and will not outlaw the practice. It's just a fact of life. We even tell people this silly lie that they have a choice.

 

The fact is that by PC standards the only things we can properly revile are things that Caucasians have created.
Muslim slavery and institutional misogyny are off the table for ridicule as these are manifestations of a diverse culture intellectually worthy of protection from the west.
Therefore the Hutu/Tutsi genocide and the Pol Pot or Maoist murders are not appropriate for criticism as whites were not involved so it was ok.
Even the Stalinist purges were ok as it protected right wing threats to socialism. The only case where whites could kill people but only because they were other whites I guess.
Every human being defies death as do even most animals.
But terror and suffering are equal in my opinion as much as other members here would view the death of minorities to be much more tragic if caused by Caucasian hands.
It makes no sense ethically!!

 

Honestly, Dairy, you're almost as good a dancer as SHE is....


. Oh, BTW, did you ever get around to reading the 10th Amendment...?

 

If it was their right, there'd not been a war. Simple. That's how I understand it.

Why don't you prove where it's legal for states to legally secede?

 

I have not seen anyone claim slavery was treasonous. I think you've bee told this already. That is a complete fabrication on your part.

 

LOL

No one, I repeat, no one has claimed slavery is treason.
The Civil War, I repeat, The Civil War, was the treason. Duh.

Have you got around to reading the definition of treason?
Honestly Policy, this isn't rocket science. Read a definition.

 

I already have. IF the federal government had the authority to outlaw slavery, they would not have needed the 13th Amendment AFTER the war. It would have been a settled matter of law. Furthermore, we fought a different war BEFORE the War of Northern Aggression specifically for the Right of a people to separate from a tyrannical government. How many times have we got to explain this to you?

 

Not a fabrication; it is a legitimate concern given your cryptic post - and THAT was explained to you by another poster. If you're going to make an objection, it needs to be something new. This stuff has been explained to you at least half a dozen ways by more than just me. Sorry Dairy Air, sometimes you are factually wrong and you were wrong this time. Give it a rest and move forward.

 

No, it was not.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE claimed slavery was treason. You guys made that up. That's on whomever thinks such nonsense.

 

Owning a person, stripped of their human rights and you are unclear of the morality involved? You are either without a sense of morality or so far on the spectrum as to be without a sense social propriety and in need of guidance.

 

Suggestion: Why don't YOU prove it's NOT legal for states to legally secede?! Especially BEFORE the Civil War began! Hey, in theory, a state like Kalifornia (for instance) could still secede... right? (We can only HOPE! )

Moreover, the ghost of English King George III would surely agree with you, Dairy, that the American Colonies did NOT have the right to declare independence (secede, leave, escape-from, etc.) from Great Britain. So, King George was perfectly justified in making war on American colonists... right?

Oh, Dairy, can it be true... that deep down inside you're a "monarchist" after all...?! Hint: I'll bet ol' King George thought our Constitution was bullshit, too!

 

When I grew up and for probably close to the first 30 years of my life, this flag was known as the Rebel Flag. Not the Confederate Flag. Usually when someone, group was protesting some government policy or action, that flag showed up. It was present at a lot of anti Vietnam war protests. which was fitting as it was known as the Rebel Flag.

So how one views this flag might be generational. I'm not sure when the name change took place, probably over a long stretch of time. But even in the 80's and 90's it was still referred mostly as the Rebel Flag. So we had a huge change in how one views this symbol over the last 20 years. So besides generational, it is also regional. A different mindset has developed over the last 20 years.

You don't see it prominently displayed on licence plates or bumper stickers anymore even down south as you did 10-20-30 years ago. So it's meaning is changing. But it's that way for a lot of symbols. from basically a protest symbol to perhaps one of hate. From being the Rebel Flag into being the Confederate Flag.

Also the flag shown was the Battle Flag. Not the official flag of the Confederacy which there were around six or seven depending on how one counted them.

for me, even with all the mind and name changes, I still view it as the rebel flag. Not as a symbol of hate, but a symbol of protest which it was most of my life. If one wants to view it as hate, that's up to them as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

So you can't prove that States have a legal right to secede. That's what I've been saying all along. That's why the southern states the went to war against the USA were traitors. That's why they had to be pardoned.

All of this and you kept telling me I'm wrong. And now given the opportunity to prove states have a right to secede, and you won't attempt it.
Ole Policy, this is the 3rd or 4th time you had to make part of the post about me.

Further proof you have no valid point.
Have a nice day.

 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dylan+roo...ebsite-web/21website-web-facebookJumbo-v2.jpg

This dude who killed black Church members in their Church, played an important role in the change of mindset over the flags meaning.

 

I still view the Rebel Flag as a symbol of protest, but that was the era I grew up in. I have no doubt that it has been used by some very unsavory people as a symbol of hate. Hence the name change from Rebel to Confederate. Perhaps one can view the Rebel Flag as a symbol for protest and the Confederate Flag as one of hate even though they're the same symbol Context comes into play here.

But it wouldn't be the first time a symbol was hijacked, a symbol first revered, than hated. The Swastika falls into that category.

How the world loved the swastika - until Hitler stole it

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29644591

Even today, Buddhist still in Southeast Asia still display the Swastika as a symbol and meaning of well being. My guess you could find it also in Tibet with the same meaning. So symbols of any kind can and do have different meanings to different folks, different cultures and traditions.

 

You cannot show anything in the Constitution that forbids secession, and you refuse to acknowledge the validity of the 10th Amendment !

Oh, BTW, there was nothing in the Constitution in 1860 that forbade slavery, either.

You, King George III, and Abra-scum Lincoln are in one corner, and those of us who revere the Constitution of the United States are in the other....

 

Perhaps you can explain why the only people who are being judged and ever are judged have been the whites in the United States. Maybe you can explain the reason that slavery is okay with the masses provided it is the government that is the slave master. Maybe you'd like to back up a few pages and get caught up so we aren't rehashing the same stuff over and over.

 

It has been proven, repeatedly, the states have a right to secede. Either you cannot read or you cannot reason, but this is beyond ridiculous. We fought a war to establish the right. What about that do you not understand? You keep coming back with the same objection, but Pollycy answered you in a way that cannot be questioned. So, again, if people do not have the right we fought to establish, then there really is no United States of America, correct?

To repeat Pollycy: "Dairy, that the American Colonies did NOT have the right to declare independence (secede, leave, escape-from, etc.) from Great Britain. So, King George was perfectly justified in making war on American colonists... right?"

So, to carry your line of reasoning to its final conclusion, if states cannot secede the Union, the colonists were powerless to separate from King George. If the colonists violated the law by separating from King George, then the federal government had no authority to tell the states they could not practice slavery since it was legal under King George. For that matter, the federal government could not legally exist using your line of reasoning. Your argument is that states cannot secede the Union. It logically follows that faulty reasoning - if the states couldn't do it, neither could the colonists. But, we fought a war with that very concept being one of the reasons. Let me quote it for you yet once again:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

The states separated from the Union just as the colonists separated from King George. How else can this principle be articulated before you understand it?IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT THE SOUTH HAD EVERY LEGAL RIGHT TO SECEDE. Ever since the North won that war the federal government has tried to force feed us multiculturalism. For over 150 years history has proven that you are wrong and the country is divided now more than 155 years ago. The federal government dictating to the states is not working... it's one of those self evident truths.

 

Of course things have different meanings to different cultures.
Hence a term called relative morality.

In USA in recent decades, the confederate flag has been a symbol of hate that made national attention. It also represents those states that fought to own black people.
So, yes, it is taking on new meaning.

 

The USSC has made a ruling.

Threats and aspirations to secede from the United States, or arguments justifying secession, have been a feature of the country's politics almost since its birth. Some have argued for secession as a constitutional right and others as from a natural right of revolution. In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

The most serious attempt at secession was advanced in the years 1860 and 1861 as eleven Southern states each declared secession from the United States, and joined together to form the Confederate States of America. This movement collapsed in 1865 with the defeat of Confederate forces by Union armies in the American Civil War.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

You fail to understand they fought a war, treasonous act, against the USA.

 

I think we have an habit of looking back on history in isolation. That we were the only country in the world at that time. 1860, slavery was legal and practiced throughout approximately 75% of the world. We look back on it as we were the only country practicing it. It was practiced by vitally every country in Asia and Africa and in Africa until in 2003 Niger made it a crime followed by Mauritania in 2007. As for Europe, prior to 1860 Russia 1723 but retains serfdom, Portugal 1761, Denmark 1848, Norway 1803, Great Britain 1807, Spain 1811, the Netherlands 1814, Greece 1822, France 1848 although some of those countries retain the practice of slavery in their colonies. Then too, the original intent of the civil war was preserving the union. No one can deny slavery entered into it, but Lincoln himself stated such.

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

This in August of 1862. This is another forgotten aspect of the civil war.

I do think we tend to totally over look the context of the time when certain events take place. The isolationist effect. It's probably political expedient to view events and happenings that way, more or less in a vacuum.

It really doesn't matter, most people will continue to view this in isolation as we are, were the only country on the face of this earth. That I understand.

 

Another poster and I went explored "Texas v White" very energetically, some months ago, and I don't dispute the finding of that court at all -- very conveniently arrived at in 1869, nearly four years AFTER the end of the Civil War!

As I've been pointing out again and again, the victors always get to make the rules, the 'laws', and write the histories. And the vanquished? After being crushed by overpowering military forces, they can do, and say, nothing.... After all, it's hard to say much of anything when you have somebody's boot in your mouth....

. "Bloody right! And if I'd had MY way, I'd have written your entire 'American' history rather differently, too!"

 

You wrote "People claim that slavery is somehow immoral, evil....'' You seem confused about whether owning someone and stripping them of their human rights is moral or not. As I wrote you either have no moral judgement or you are so far out on the spectrum as to be unaware of social constraints. Your race is beside the point.

 

Despite all the facts, and thank you for providing even more of them, slavery was merely a pretext for war. The real issue was one that was settled law without Lincoln's interference.