Is the Confederate flag racist?

And anyone who thinks a piece of cloth is racist,.foxhound_fox

What about if I manage to acquire an authentic SS uniform and wear it around not because I support Nazi ideology but because I think the uniform is badass?

God bless the Confederecah !

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] And anyone who thinks a piece of cloth is racist,.freek666

What about if I manage to acquire an authentic SS uniform and wear it around not because I support Nazi ideology but because I think the uniform is badass?

Seriously, those unfiroms are sharp as hell. We still have one in our basement, looks so awesome.

Frame_Dragger sure is whipping out a lot of history in this thread. I agree with pretty much all of what he's said. I think you cannot separate the confederate flag from the history of slavery in the south. Slavery was the driving force behind the economy of the south. I dont think someone is racist just because they show a confederate flag, but it seems unwise or that they must be ignorant of the history of the south and it's reliance on slavery.

lazyhoboguy

[QUOTE="lazyhoboguy"]

Dwelling on slavery as the driving force for the civil war is like dwelling on yeast when considering beer; it's not the whole story, but you don't get beer without it.

@Freek666: It's one thing to appreciate fashion, and another to wear it. You probably think a number of super-hero costumes are badass, but presumabely you don't go around wearing a cape. Why? In both cases, people would make a number of assumptions about you, none of them positive. You'd then have to accept other consequences, such as becoming the object of negative publicity, ridicule, harrassment, and possibly violence. In the USA, if you can accept all of that, you can wear it. In Germany it's against the law... so it depends.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] I didn't realize that the only issue fought over during the Civil War was slavery. And why can a German not celebrate their heritage of his father fighting during WWI and WWII? Those men of the Wehrmacht foght bravely for their country, and died for something they believed in (not what the Nazi's did). Not everyone in the South who fought in the war was a slave-owning, plantation-running bureaucrat. Most of the men and boys fighting were fighting to keep their homes. Sometimes I am amazed at how one-dimensionally people think about wars.LJS9502_basic

Yeah, but do families of WWII vets fly swastikas? Frankly, I find there are very few wars that have ever been fought by any country where people should be proud of the cause they fought for, that doesn't mean the troops can't retain some pride. What I don't think they should do is celebrate symbols of oppression.

Buddhists do.

Bhuddists, by way of Hindus... and the presentation is markedly different from the Nazi version. By the same token, if you're a German Hindu, it's STILL going to get you in trouble if you try to fly a flag with a swastika on it. C'est la vie.

@SpartanMSU: You can use a trowel as a spoon too, but it doesn't change what it is. Symbols have meaning that isn't just defined by the person displaying it.

@People going on about pride/heritage: So... again... what exactly are we proud of that the flag represents? Proud to have seceeded and been crushed? Proud to have fought at all? It's not a modern symbol, so what element of southern pride is there, and what heritage? This, keeping in mind that most people in the south are not exactly master geneologists who trace their families back to the civil war. As for heritage, it specifically dates that heritage to:
1.) Slavery
2.) Seceeding from the country that said states are now a part of
3.) A really horrendous war
4.) Losing that war
So... what heritage? What is there to be proud of that it symbolizes?

No but it's popular with racists.

[QUOTE="lazyhoboguy"]

Frame_Dragger sure is whipping out a lot of history in this thread. I agree with pretty much all of what he's said. I think you cannot separate the confederate flag from the history of slavery in the south. Slavery was the driving force behind the economy of the south. I dont think someone is racist just because they show a confederate flag, but it seems unwise or that they must be ignorant of the history of the south and it's reliance on slavery.

LJS9502_basic

I don't think anyone's limiting the scope of the war to one issue, no one on this side had denied that economic factors played a part in starting the war. However, it's not right to downplay a major issue of the war, that's revisionism. Slaverywas a central issue, it was probably the central issue as all other economic issues were related in some way to slavery, and without the slavery issue you don't have secession.

Furthermore, let's say I grant you this point, we can downplay slavery as an issue in starting the war, but what about how the issue played out during the war? You had the Emancipation Proclomation on the part of the North, the sheltering of freed slaves, and the start of black enlistment in the army. On the other side you had plantation owners shooting runaways, the Confederate Army trying to draft slaves when it got desperate with no promises of citizenship, and slaves flocking to Northern armies en masse even if it meant running the chance of being turned away and left to fend for themselves in a harsh environment, they still thought it was better than living in the Confederacy. Even if it didn't start as a symbol of oppression, which I think is a dubious claim anyways, by the end of the war it was a symbol of oppression and remains one to this day.

It has become a symbol or racists, especially in the South.Since the KKK and Neo-Nazis use it as their symbols, lot of folks associate it with and use it for racists actions.

EsYuGee

No, the flag itself does not make you a racist.

Not quite as racist as this:

http://www.tvfanatic.com/gallery/racist-south-park-flag/

But yes still racist.

It has become a symbol or racists, especially in the South.Since the KKK and Neo-Nazis use it as their symbols, lot of folks associate it with and use it for racists actions.

Not really, its usually associated with rednecks. I live in Wisconsin so i come across them from time to time, nothing harmless.

So you don't need to worry, I personally think the design is pretty cool.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] I didn't realize that the only issue fought over during the Civil War was slavery. And why can a German not celebrate their heritage of his father fighting during WWI and WWII? Those men of the Wehrmacht foght bravely for their country, and died for something they believed in (not what the Nazi's did). Not everyone in the South who fought in the war was a slave-owning, plantation-running bureaucrat. Most of the men and boys fighting were fighting to keep their homes. Sometimes I am amazed at how one-dimensionally people think about wars.th3warr1or

Yeah, but do families of WWII vets fly swastikas? Frankly, I find there are very few wars that have ever been fought by any country where people should be proud of the cause they fought for, that doesn't mean the troops can't retain some pride. What I don't think they should do is celebrate symbols of oppression.

Buddhists do.

Some do, though I doubt you'll find many in the West.

Wasn't even the actual flag of the Confederate army anyways. First one was Stars and Bars which looked to much like the North's flag, then they made a white one using the Battle Flag from the Army of North Virginia then after not being happy about that they just put a red vertical line on the end of it.

Only reason why I think the large Battle Flag print is popular would be from Marines raising the flag over Shuri castle on Okinawa.

Personally I don't find it racist but just shows that majority don't know the history at all behind the flag.

It depends on who's flying it, although I find it odd that anyone would want to fly the flag of an institution who's only significant accomplishment was losing their only war and being dissolved.

The only correct answer is No.

LORD_BLACKGULT

Dwelling on slavery as the driving force for the civil war is like dwelling on yeast when considering beer; it's not the whole story, but you don't get beer without it.Frame_Dragger

It has become a symbol or racists, especially in the South.Since the KKK and Neo-Nazis use it as their symbols, lot of folks associate it with and use it for racists actions.

The only correct answer is No.

[QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"][QUOTE="LORD_BLACKGULT"]

The only correct answer is No.

Frame_Dragger

As for the reason for the flag....to the southerner it's seen as a symbol of the south.

It depends on who's flying it, although I find it odd that anyone would want to fly the flag of an institution who's only significant accomplishment was losing their only war and being dissolved.

topgunmv

It's more of a heritage thing win or lose.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="AmazonTreeBoa"] This. The only people that call it racist are the uneducated.LJS9502_basic

As for the reason for the flag....to the southerner it's seen as a symbol of the south.

You realize that my impression of your posts is essentially the same? We're not getting anywhere with this anymore, no new information is being discussed. I'm happy to continue to debate, but not by beating a dead horse. As for the "symbol of the south," my question is what that means, stands for, embodies. What is it that being a southerner is, that the confederate flag celebrates? What is the source of the regional pride and its connection to the confederate flag which already stands for quite a lot besides?

@KC_Hokie: True, but this was a civil war; everyone involved who survived and didn't flee the country became part of the USA. France's flag stands for France, good and bad history alike. The American flag stands for the USA, good and bad, INCLUDING its civil war and all the states involved. Flying the flag of a secessionest group of non-nationals which lost their bid to forge a different country is a different beast entirely. Still, if it isn't celebrating the principles of the confederacy, and simply, "southern pride"... why that flag? Generally only groups that maintain a real or imagined sense of opression and seperation from the mainstream have "pride" flags, such as gay pride. Once gay people are treated completely equally and their pride can be placed in the USA flag, and of course a generation or two passes, that flag will probably become defunct.

It's natural for group-identity to merge once acceptance occurs, and time passes. IMO, the confederate flag as it's used today is less about pride, heritage, racism, or anything like that, than it is about trying to establish some special identity to justify current conditions and a sense of inferiority. Tracing that back to the civil war is, in my opinion, laughable, but hey... there it is. More than racism, the common thread you'll find among non-civil war buffs who are into this flag, are: [spoiler] Poor [/spoiler]

You realize that my impression of your posts is essentially the same? We're not getting anywhere with this anymore, no new information is being discussed. I'm happy to continue to debate, but not by beating a dead horse. As for the "symbol of the south," my question is what that means, stands for, embodies. What is it that being a southerner is, that the confederate flag celebrates? What is the source of the regional pride and its connection to the confederate flag which already stands for quite a lot besides? Frame_Dragger

Why can't it mean the South? Why are you expecting it to mean anything more? A flag IS a symbol of the people that fly that flag. The US flag is a symbol of the US. The UK flag is the flag of the UK etc. I'm not getting why it HAS to mean more.:?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]You realize that my impression of your posts is essentially the same? We're not getting anywhere with this anymore, no new information is being discussed. I'm happy to continue to debate, but not by beating a dead horse. As for the "symbol of the south," my question is what that means, stands for, embodies. What is it that being a southerner is, that the confederate flag celebrates? What is the source of the regional pride and its connection to the confederate flag which already stands for quite a lot besides? LJS9502_basic

Why can't it mean the South? Why are you expecting it to mean anything more? A flag IS a symbol of the people that fly that flag. The US flag is a symbol of the US. The UK flag is the flag of the UK etc. I'm not getting why it HAS to mean more.:?

I expect a symbol to represent something more because the people who fly it say that it does. If not, then the symbol is already pre-loaded with plenty of negative baggage that overwhelms something as simplistic as, "we're southern Americans". The UK flag is the flag of the UK, and there isn't a seperate flag for London-Pride is there? There's The Stars and Stripes for the USA, and The Union Jack for the UK... so... why does a country require a second national symbol for SOME people? As for the, "took a course in college bit," I thought when you first said that earlier in the thread that you were offering a straight-line.

I mean, congratulations, I took a course on international law, but I don't have illusions of being an international law expert. In my experience, there isn't much to be said for any course until you've gotten into post-grad specialization, but I don't intend to bludgeon this issue either. You're also right that just responding, "slavery" is no passing grade, but that is also a horrible misrepresentation of what I've said in multiple pages of posts. You can continue to pick and choose, then mischaracterize what I've said, but it does you no credit and offers no rhetorical challenge to me.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]You realize that my impression of your posts is essentially the same? We're not getting anywhere with this anymore, no new information is being discussed. I'm happy to continue to debate, but not by beating a dead horse. As for the "symbol of the south," my question is what that means, stands for, embodies. What is it that being a southerner is, that the confederate flag celebrates? What is the source of the regional pride and its connection to the confederate flag which already stands for quite a lot besides? Frame_Dragger

Why can't it mean the South? Why are you expecting it to mean anything more? A flag IS a symbol of the people that fly that flag. The US flag is a symbol of the US. The UK flag is the flag of the UK etc. I'm not getting why it HAS to mean more.:?

I expect a symbol to represent something more because the people who fly it say that it does. If not, then the symbol is already pre-loaded with plenty of negative baggage that overwhelms something as simplistic as, "we're southern Americans". The UK flag is the flag of the UK, and there isn't a seperate flag for London-Pride is there? There's The Stars and Stripes for the USA, and The Union Jack for the UK... so... why does a country require a second national symbol for SOME people? As for the, "took a course in college bit," I thought when you first said that earlier in the thread that you were offering a straight-line.

It's an ancient Scottish flag still used to represent Scotland.

I expect a symbol to represent something more because the people who fly it say that it does. If not, then the symbol is already pre-loaded with plenty of negative baggage that overwhelms something as simplistic as, "we're southern Americans". The UK flag is the flag of the UK, and there isn't a seperate flag for London-Pride is there? There's The Stars and Stripes for the USA, and The Union Jack for the UK... so... why does a country require a second national symbol for SOME people? As for the, "took a course in college bit," I thought when you first said that earlier in the thread that you were offering a straight-line. I mean, congratulations, I took a course on international law, but I don't have illusions of being an international law expert. In my experience, there isn't much to be said for any course until you've gotten into post-grad specialization, but I don't intend to bludgeon this issue either. You're also right that just responding, "slavery" is no passing grade, but that is also a horrible misrepresentation of what I've said in multiple pages of posts. You can continue to pick and choose, then mischaracterize what I've said, but it does you no credit and offers no rhetorical challenge to me.Frame_Dragger

Could you perhaps use paragraphs to make it easier to read? Anyway....what I'm saying when I talk about school is that a surface answer is not the entire issue the North and South faced. I've given you issues which you don't deem to give credence toward....I do not know why. Or you say that is part of slavery. Well no. The tariffs problems were not caused because of slavery. If the South had paid employees or used machines to harvest they would still have had a hard time with the tariffs. Basically economically the North and South were vastly different. Almost like two different nations at the time under one flag. And what was beneficial to one was rarely beneficial to the other.

I don't want a rhetorical challenge. By it's very nature rhetorical requires no response. And again...I've given you several issues that you ignore. Even though there certainly were more problems than the south have slavery that led to the dissolution of the union. States Rights was very much an important issue to the South. They didn't want to lose autonomy to the Union that would hurt them economically. Yes...in that regard slavery was an issue. But remember the US Government was not planning on outlawing slavery in states that already established it. They were limiting expansion of the practice.

And frankly the North was no more enlightened than the South. They just had different methods of racism. Fortunately we've come a long way since that time. But I don't believe flying a Confederate Flag necessarily means one is racist. Most of the southerners I've talked with about it see it as a symbol of the South. Nothing more. It's not that common of a sight down south either. Least when I lived there I didn't see a preponderance of Confederate Flags. Sometimes when an individual has a preconceived notion....that is what he sees.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't believe one can correctly call listing some of the issues that lead to Civil War as surface....considering I put more detailed problems than just the one....but whatever. As I said I did take that course in school and listing slavery as the reason would not have been a passing grade. It really was much more detailed.

Why can't it mean the South? Why are you expecting it to mean anything more? A flag IS a symbol of the people that fly that flag. The US flag is a symbol of the US. The UK flag is the flag of the UK etc. I'm not getting why it HAS to mean more.:?

I expect a symbol to represent something more because the people who fly it say that it does. If not, then the symbol is already pre-loaded with plenty of negative baggage that overwhelms something as simplistic as, "we're southern Americans". The UK flag is the flag of the UK, and there isn't a seperate flag for London-Pride is there? There's The Stars and Stripes for the USA, and The Union Jack for the UK... so... why does a country require a second national symbol for SOME people? As for the, "took a course in college bit," I thought when you first said that earlier in the thread that you were offering a straight-line.

It's an ancient Scottish flag still used to represent Scotland.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

I expect a symbol to represent something more because the people who fly it say that it does. If not, then the symbol is already pre-loaded with plenty of negative baggage that overwhelms something as simplistic as, "we're southern Americans". The UK flag is the flag of the UK, and there isn't a seperate flag for London-Pride is there? There's The Stars and Stripes for the USA, and The Union Jack for the UK... so... why does a country require a second national symbol for SOME people? As for the, "took a course in college bit," I thought when you first said that earlier in the thread that you were offering a straight-line.Frame_Dragger

It's an ancient Scottish flag still used to represent Scotland.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I expect a symbol to represent something more because the people who fly it say that it does. If not, then the symbol is already pre-loaded with plenty of negative baggage that overwhelms something as simplistic as, "we're southern Americans". The UK flag is the flag of the UK, and there isn't a seperate flag for London-Pride is there? There's The Stars and Stripes for the USA, and The Union Jack for the UK... so... why does a country require a second national symbol for SOME people? As for the, "took a course in college bit," I thought when you first said that earlier in the thread that you were offering a straight-line. I mean, congratulations, I took a course on international law, but I don't have illusions of being an international law expert. In my experience, there isn't much to be said for any course until you've gotten into post-grad specialization, but I don't intend to bludgeon this issue either. You're also right that just responding, "slavery" is no passing grade, but that is also a horrible misrepresentation of what I've said in multiple pages of posts. You can continue to pick and choose, then mischaracterize what I've said, but it does you no credit and offers no rhetorical challenge to me.LJS9502_basic

Could you perhaps use paragraphs to make it easier to read? Anyway....what I'm saying when I talk about school is that a surface answer is not the entire issue the North and South faced. I've given you issues which you don't deem to give credence toward....I do not know why. Or you say that is part of slavery. Well no. The tariffs problems were not caused because of slavery. If the South had paid employees or used machines to harvest they would still have had a hard time with the tariffs. Basically economically the North and South were vastly different. Almost like two different nations at the time under one flag. And what was beneficial to one was rarely beneficial to the other.

I don't want a rhetorical challenge. By it's very nature rhetorical requires no response. And again...I've given you several issues that you ignore. Even though there certainly were more problems than the south have slavery that led to the dissolution of the union. States Rights was very much an important issue to the South. They didn't want to lose autonomy to the Union that would hurt them economically. Yes...in that regard slavery was an issue. But remember the US Government was not planning on outlawing slavery in states that already established it. They were limiting expansion of the practice.

And frankly the North was no more enlightened than the South. They just had different methods of racism. Fortunately we've come a long way since that time. But I don't believe flying a Confederate Flag necessarily means one is racist. Most of the southerners I've talked with about it see it as a symbol of the South. Nothing more. It's not that common of a sight down south either. Least when I lived there I didn't see a preponderance of Confederate Flags. Sometimes when an individual has a preconceived notion....that is what he sees.

At that point, all of the steps that were a part of the conflicts which led to secession dissapear, because you don't have a divided country to begin with. You can ignore that, or pretend that I've said something else, but there it is. I've never once said it's the "only reason" for the civil war, but you continually represent me as having said that. At some point I have to wonder if you're trying your hand at rhetorical tactics, or if I just shouldn't bother writing what won't be read.

You see, I've also said before that the civil war wasn't about freeing slaves for moral reasons, although I concede that abolitionists were not devoid of members motivated by morality. I've maintained that this was an issue of power, which I outlined pages ago. Remember, we talked about the Missourri Compromises and all of that? Either you've forgotten it, didn't read it, or expect me to start quoting myself... come on man.

P.S. How the hell do you insert line breaks here? The < s)which works elsewhere doesn't on the forums.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Actually the UK has regional flags and all sorts of regional banners. This is one of many examples:

It's an ancient Scottish flag still used to represent Scotland.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Yeah, and Puerto Rico has a flag... it's not really a good analogy now is it?Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Mine was. I pointed out a region within a country with a historic flag still used for heritage purposes. The Scots lost to the Brits a long time ago and still fly this flag for regional pride.

KC_Hokie

They are a seperate COUNTRY, which is then under the UK. They're not celebrating flags of Scottish pride, it's the national flag of an EXISTING COUNTRY. The rest seems to be making my point for me; they're ethnically different, UNLIKE "southern vs. northern" which is merely a regional distinction within ONE country. Seriously, I can't tell if you're pulling my leg here, or if you're being serious.

You might as well wonder why Australians or Canadians fly their own flags. By your "logic", flying the confederate flag would make sense only in an alternate history in which the war ground to a halt, and the south agreed to general rule by the North, rather than unconditional surrender and immidiate reintrigation.

We already have gotten into this, although maybe you missed it by skimming. I keep pointing out how slavery was central to the war, not THE ONLY factor. It is true that economics were a major factor, but you prefer to ignore the economic dependance of the south on slavery and focus only on northern tariffs. As I've said, maybe half a dozen times, the tariffs WERE a political and economic bludgeon, but as part of the escalation to war. If the south used machinery to harvest cotton or paid labor, they wouldn't have had the economic or political power to challenge the federal government in the first place.

At that point, all of the steps that were a part of the conflicts which led to secession dissapear, because you don't have a divided country to begin with. You can ignore that, or pretend that I've said something else, but there it is. I've never once said it's the "only reason" for the civil war, but you continually represent me as having said that. At some point I have to wonder if you're trying your hand at rhetorical tactics, or if I just shouldn't bother writing what won't be read.

You see, I've also said before that the civil war wasn't about freeing slaves for moral reasons, although I concede that abolitionists were not devoid of members motivated by morality. I've maintained that this was an issue of power, which I outlined pages ago. Remember, we talked about the Missourri Compromises and all of that? Either you've forgotten it, didn't read it, or expect me to start quoting myself... come on man.

P.S. How the hell do you insert line breaks here? The < s)which works elsewhere doesn't on the forums.

Frame_Dragger

I'm not getting where the idea comes from that paid employees nor machinery would make the South unable to challenge the government. I don't see that at all. All things being equal in that example the only difference was that slavery didn't exist. The tariffs would still have hurt the south and I don't think they'd have been happy in that case either. What are you basing that on?

I told you that rhetorical means no answer is required. I'm unsure why you keep using that word.

Abolitionists existed in both the North and the South. Racists existed in both the North and the South. The North, unfortunately, wasn't ending slavery over moral issues....no. More to get back at the South. And what about the Missouri Compromise? That was one of the catalyst's for the State's Rights argument.

The secession, of course, occured after Lincoln's election.

I keep the editor on....so I don't know.:P

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] The scots are STILL under British control, are ethnically a seperate group, and not simply a region of the UK which seceeded briefly and was crushed back into submission. To pretend that an occupied region, child-state, protectorate, etc... is somehow the same is absurd. Puerto Rico has a flag, because they are ethnically Puerto Rican, although they are subject to US law. It WOULD potentially make sense if Hawaii had their own flag I suppose, but they don't... the same bunch of mostly-british-descended white people drew an imaginary line for the duration of an armed civil conflict. Again... it is a non-functional analogy. The scots are Ethnically Celts... you might as well go back to colonial Africa and India and use them as analogies. Please!Frame_Dragger

They are a seperate COUNTRY, which is then under the UK. They're not celebrating flags of Scottish pride, it's the national flag of an EXISTING COUNTRY. The rest seems to be making my point for me; they're ethnically different, UNLIKE "southern vs. northern" which is merely a regional distinction within ONE country. Seriously, I can't tell if you're pulling my leg here, or if you're being serious.

You might as well wonder why Australians or Canadians fly their own flags. By your "logic", flying the confederate flag would make sense only in an alternate history in which the war ground to a halt, and the south agreed to general rule by the North, rather than unconditional surrender and immidiate reintrigation.

Scotland is a region of the UK. There is Scottish pride just like there is Southern pride in the U.S.

Are you now arguing southern heritage and pride doesn't exist?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

We already have gotten into this, although maybe you missed it by skimming. I keep pointing out how slavery was central to the war, not THE ONLY factor. It is true that economics were a major factor, but you prefer to ignore the economic dependance of the south on slavery and focus only on northern tariffs. As I've said, maybe half a dozen times, the tariffs WERE a political and economic bludgeon, but as part of the escalation to war. If the south used machinery to harvest cotton or paid labor, they wouldn't have had the economic or political power to challenge the federal government in the first place.

At that point, all of the steps that were a part of the conflicts which led to secession dissapear, because you don't have a divided country to begin with. You can ignore that, or pretend that I've said something else, but there it is. I've never once said it's the "only reason" for the civil war, but you continually represent me as having said that. At some point I have to wonder if you're trying your hand at rhetorical tactics, or if I just shouldn't bother writing what won't be read.

You see, I've also said before that the civil war wasn't about freeing slaves for moral reasons, although I concede that abolitionists were not devoid of members motivated by morality. I've maintained that this was an issue of power, which I outlined pages ago. Remember, we talked about the Missourri Compromises and all of that? Either you've forgotten it, didn't read it, or expect me to start quoting myself... come on man.

P.S. How the hell do you insert line breaks here? The < s)which works elsewhere doesn't on the forums.

LJS9502_basic

I'm not getting where the idea comes from that paid employees nor machinery would make the South unable to challenge the government. I don't see that at all. All things being equal in that example the only difference was that slavery didn't exist. The tariffs would still have hurt the south and I don't think they'd have been happy in that case either. What are you basing that on?

I told you that rhetorical means no answer is required. I'm unsure why you keep using that word.

Abolitionists existed in both the North and the South. Racists existed in both the North and the South. The North, unfortunately, wasn't ending slavery over moral issues....no. More to get back at the South. And what about the Missouri Compromise? That was one of the catalyst's for the State's Rights argument.

The secession, of course, occured after Lincoln's election.

I keep the editor on....so I don't know.:P

1. used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect.

2. marked by or tending to use bombast.

3. of, concerned with, or having the nature of rhetoric. Dictionarydotcom

I'm not trying to slam you at every turn, but you keep saying things that are innacurate or incomplete, or designed to divert the conversation in general.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]They are a different group of people ethnically than the English with a distinctly different people (English are Anglo-Saxon not Celt). They still fly flags of Scottish pride even though they lost to the UK a long time ago. Their heritage and pride aren't gone. KC_Hokie

They are a seperate COUNTRY, which is then under the UK. They're not celebrating flags of Scottish pride, it's the national flag of an EXISTING COUNTRY. The rest seems to be making my point for me; they're ethnically different, UNLIKE "southern vs. northern" which is merely a regional distinction within ONE country. Seriously, I can't tell if you're pulling my leg here, or if you're being serious.

You might as well wonder why Australians or Canadians fly their own flags. By your "logic", flying the confederate flag would make sense only in an alternate history in which the war ground to a halt, and the south agreed to general rule by the North, rather than unconditional surrender and immidiate reintrigation.

Scotland is a region of the UK. There is Scottish pride just like there is Southern pride in the U.S.

Are you now arguing southern heritage and pride doesn't exist?

As for Southern pride, I'm not arguing AGAINST it or FOR it... I've been asking for pages what that phrase MEANS. Pride in WHAT? What heritage? What does this flag represent that is not already under the aegis of the American Flag?! To quote myself from earlier (because I can see that one way or another, I might as well get used to that now, rather than retype old points and arguments):

@KC_Hokie: True, but this was a civil war; everyone involved who survived and didn't flee the country became part of the USA. France's flag stands for France, good and bad history alike. The American flag stands for the USA, good and bad, INCLUDING its civil war and all the states involved. Flying the flag of a secessionest group of non-nationals which lost their bid to forge a different country is a different beast entirely. Still, if it isn't celebrating the principles of the confederacy, and simply, "southern pride"... why that flag?

Generally only groups that maintain a real or imagined sense of opression and seperation from the mainstream have "pride" flags, such as gay pride. Once gay people are treated completely equally and their pride can be placed in the USA flag, and of course a generation or two passes, that flag will probably become defunct. It's natural for group-identity to merge once acceptance occurs, and time passes.

IMO, the confederate flag as it's used today is less about pride, heritage, racism, or anything like that, than it is about trying to establish some special identity to justify current conditions and a sense of inferiority. Tracing that back to the civil war is, in my opinion, laughable, but hey... there it is. More than racism, the common thread you'll find among non-civil war buffs who are into this flag, are: Frame_Dragger

I'm not trying to slam you at every turn, but you keep saying things that are innacurate or incomplete, or designed to divert the conversation in general.

Frame_Dragger

And the North was not riding in on a white stallion to free slaves because they believed in equality. But then you haven't addressed any issues here so there is nothing more to add.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

They are a seperate COUNTRY, which is then under the UK. They're not celebrating flags of Scottish pride, it's the national flag of an EXISTING COUNTRY. The rest seems to be making my point for me; they're ethnically different, UNLIKE "southern vs. northern" which is merely a regional distinction within ONE country. Seriously, I can't tell if you're pulling my leg here, or if you're being serious.

You might as well wonder why Australians or Canadians fly their own flags. By your "logic", flying the confederate flag would make sense only in an alternate history in which the war ground to a halt, and the south agreed to general rule by the North, rather than unconditional surrender and immidiate reintrigation.

Frame_Dragger

Scotland is a region of the UK. There is Scottish pride just like there is Southern pride in the U.S.

Are you now arguing southern heritage and pride doesn't exist?

As for Southern pride, I'm not arguing AGAINST it or FOR it... I've been asking for pages what that phrase MEANS. Pride in WHAT? What heritage? What does this flag represent that is not already under the aegis of the American Flag?! To quote myself from earlier (because I can see that one way or another, I might as well get used to that now, rather than retype old points and arguments):

Heritage and pride exist all across the world. Are you saying a group of people are required to have their own coutry in order to fly a flag of heritage and pride?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

I'm not trying to slam you at every turn, but you keep saying things that are innacurate or incomplete, or designed to divert the conversation in general.

Adn the North was not riding in on a white stallion to free slaves because they believed in equality. But then you haven't addressed any issues here so there is nothing more to add.

[Scotland can have a dozen flags... it is, in addition to being part of the UK, a country in its own right. If you don't beleive me, use this miracle of the internet and check. Their symbols are actual national symbols; that is, symbols belonging to an existing nation and ethnic group.

As for Southern pride, I'm not arguing AGAINST it or FOR it... I've been asking for pages what that phrase MEANS. Pride in WHAT? What heritage? What does this flag represent that is not already under the aegis of the American Flag?! To quote myself from earlier (because I can see that one way or another, I might as well get used to that now, rather than retype old points and arguments):

IMO, the confederate flag as it's used today is less about pride, heritage, racism, or anything like that, than it is about trying to establish some special identity to justify current conditions and a sense of inferiority. Tracing that back to the civil war is, in my opinion, laughable, but hey... there it is. More than racism, the common thread you'll find among non-civil war buffs who are into this flag, are:

Frame_Dragger

I don't believe the south considers themselves inferior. From living in the south....I'd say they are just proud to be from "home".