Is Confederate flag a symbol of hate?

Oh. hell no, and who is Bobby Davis?

 

That's an interesting dodge. How about actually answering the question? Is that too much to ask for? Sorry, but the historical sources we have from the time period show, in the Confederacy's own words, that their primary concern was slavery. They did not equivocate.

 

..... and .....

The notion that the Confederate flag is a symbol of hate has been proven wrong by the poll where 66% of the voters DO NOT agree.

I have stated everything is there in order for anyone to understand the facts but if English comprehension and/or mathematics is the problem then I can't help. Maybe someone else can explain it in terms that are simpler though I cannot imagine how the difference between 34% and 66% can be made any clearer than it is.

 

It must have been rewritten in the tiniest of font sizes because I am of the conviction that 80 to 95% of the Ameican population never heard of it ... or its gist.

 

It's complicated ...
For many, of course, the flag only stands for the dispute regarding the law of the individual state vis-à-vis the Union and not for slavery ... at least it is often said.
So far that is correct at first glance, but ... what was this dispute about the rights of individual states vis-à-vis the Union about, in essence and as a topic? Just ... exactly about the question of slavery, or the prohibition of slavery and its abolition etc.

But ... slavery or not, the flag is part of US history and it doesn't represent anything as totally horrific like the Nazi swastika flag in Germany. So the whole discussion in the US about is just nonsense as the intention to forbid this flag etc.

But the US is not alone with such idiotic things. Also in my country - Germany there is the same idiotic nonsense several times.
Some politicians ... especially far lefties but also some conservative morons ... do not want any Bundeswehr barracks to continue to bear the name of a Wehrmacht officer from World War II. But this also applies to the officers who were involved in the unfortunately unsuccessful assassination attempt on Hitler in 1944 and who were subsequently sentenced to death. In addition to the candy layer Count Stauffenberg, this also affects Erwin Rommel, who was forced to commit suicide.
But even that doesn't change the opinion of these jerks, because all of them were supporters of Hitler etc. before they say ... and it doesn't matter that they then changed their minds with fatal consequences!
Just ridiculous these idiots!

 

They were just good ol boys, never meanin' no harm.

 

Do you think that the Unionists were less racist than the Southerners at that time? Maybe they were, but just a little bit.

 

The WAR OF SOUTHERN AGGRESSION was fought to force and prolong the continued enslavement of human beings as the economic engine of the treasonous States, and their treasonous leaders. Every one of them said so in their Declarations of War upon the United States.

For the United States to have permitted the memorializing, the rising to cultural sainthood of the traitors and their battle flag is a great error in our history. Long overdue for correction.

 

As I said, slavery was definitely one of the great contributing irritants that led to a civil war... no one, including me, has denied that. But you want "sources from the time period" that cite the Southern reasons for breaking away from the tyranny of Lincoln and his Northern handlers? You can do no better than to go to the actual "Ordnance of Secession" issued by the different states that eventually made up the Confederacy.

What you and the other 'experts' so often overlook, entirely, is that slavery was legal in the United States until 1863! However distasteful it may be to our 21st-century sensitivities even to discuss the REALITIES of the United States in the mid-1800's, the LEGAL FACT was that, with very few exceptions, individual slaves were PROPERTY of the owners, who bought and paid for them, much as you or I could go to a rural auction barn today and buy cattle, sheep, horses, or goats.... If you made your living, and invested your life and fortune being a sheep herder, how would you feel about a big sob-sister movement agitating in another part of the country against anyone raising sheep?! THAT was the reality of the period prior to the civil war, whether it was taught to you in some lib 'history class' or not.

There were other 'irritants', too, like tariffs and taxes -- and -- the intent of the central federal government to deny newly-created states that would come into the union the ability to have LEGAL slavery practiced in their borders also!

Try once again to understand the REALITIES of the United States and the entire WORLD of the 1800's! England didn't end slavery until 1833. It was not ended in France until 1848! The use of slaves was every bit as necessary -- and customary -- to the economies of the world by the beginning of the 19th-century as, say, the use of computers and the internet are to us today! How would you like it if some bunch of doctrinaire tyrants decided that we should go back to the 'old way' of doing business in the way it was in the 1970's, when there were no personal computers and no internet?!

I haven't even touched on the brutal RAPE of the 10th Amendment of our Constitution committed by Lincoln as his 'Lords of the North' as they inflicted their totalitarian, UNconstitutional will on the entire country. But, you are a "scholar" with vast amounts of in-depth understanding of the period and the documents by which American lived... right?

Then please read THIS and tell us exactly how Lincoln had any right as 'Chief Executive' to overthrow states' rights, overthrow the Southern economies, and, to prevent states from leaving the organization known as the "United States" --

 

I never lived there, but I went there three times: once to my grandfather's funeral (a cousin and I stayed for a month so my grandmother wouldn't be home alone.) I attended my great grandmother's funeral when I was maybe 6 and then once I got a job selling insurance door to door and was sent there by the company.

No idea who Bobby Davis is.

 

I know the South did not want Lincoln as President. Because he was anti-slavery.
They adopted their secession documents soon after his election. Slavery, as the documents of each state shows, was a major concern. And a major reason the SOUTH started the civil war.
History proves that.

 

And what I'm telling you, and what the historical sources attest to, is that it was THE primary reason for Southern secession.

Actually, you can do quite a bit better. The Ordinances don't typically provide the reasons for secession. Those are more directly found in the Declarations of Causes of Secession, which were separate documents. They overwhelmingly name slavery as the primary reason for secession. I encourage you to read them.

I base my opinion on primary sources, not "experts," and I've addressed this misleading claim before. For now, I'll just return to the fact that, regardless of your own opinions of the North and their goals, the Confederates were convinced (and specifically stated their fear) that the North was on a path to abolish slavery, and that this was the primary reason they seceded to form their own nation.

Quite revealing, but black people are people. Not sheep. It isn't a "sob-sister" movement to acknowledge this biological fact. We'll get more into this later, but your antagonism toward natural rights is telling. It is the equivalent of arguing that if you made your living by being an assassin, then you'd be okay with murder. Vapid nonsense. But I guess by your estimation only "libs" believe in inherent rights. Funny to hear that admission.

The only taxes specifically mentioned in the Declarations of Causes were taxes on slaves. Tariffs weren't mentioned, and even duties were only mentioned in passing.

This is also simply a fake argument. Tariffs were the primary taxation at the time, and the tariffs in place at the time were designed BY SOUTHERNERS. The South had already won the tariff debate. On top of that, we know for a fact that this would not have been a cause for secession because at least one state had threatened to seceded over tariffs in the past . . . they didn't do so, in part because no other state was willing to join them. Obviously slavery was a bigger concern.

We'll get into the supposed "legality" of slavery in a second, but yes, the Republicans wanted to deny newly-created states from being slave states . . . which was within their Constitutional authority. Congress has the authority to admit new States and territories.

I find it odd that you have no complaint about the Confederacy doing exactly the opposite in their own Constitution: requiring that all new territories be slave territories, like the current Confederate states and territories. That's part of why we know, as an empirical fact that the States' Rights > Slavery argument is fake. The Confederacy clearly cared more about slavery than it cared about States' rights.

Another fake argument, and quite frankly the most vapid one yet. You can't argue that slavery was "necessary" in one breath and admit that other countries had already done away with it in the next. That's just a braindead argument. Clearly if other countries and states and territories had already done away with slavery then it wasn't truly "necessary." The fact that the South didn't collapse the moment they got rid of slavery is further proof that this is just a historically ignorant argument.

Did part of that make sense in your head? You are the one defending the "old way." In reality, the "old way as demonstrably unnecessary. Though it is really, really funny to hear you complain about tyranny while defending slavery. Please tell me you are joking.

Ugh, I take it back. The arguments actually do keep getting worse. So many things to cover here. For one thing, the States had a legally-binding oath to uphold the Constitution and they tried to violently take back property that they had legally granted to the Federal government. They fired the first shots after starting a campaign to steal Federal property (and, no, that campaign did not start at Fort Sumter). As for the "tyranny" of Lincoln and the Republicans, I once again encourage you to read the Declarations of Causes while also keeping in mind that the Confederate states began seceding and formed their own country before Lincoln was even sworn in. In fact, they swore in their own president before Lincoln was sworn in. The only specific "tyranny" they complained about were issues involving slavery.

As for the 10th Amendment, as per usual the "States' rights' crowd likes to skim over the "or to the people" part. In fact, they like to skim over all rights granted to "the people" in the Constitution. The Confederates recognized that such language, especially when combined with the Declaration of Independence, implied a legal equality of rights among races and that the US was on a path to recognizing this fact. Georgia brought this up in their own Declaration of Causes and the VP of the CSA took it on more directly, celebrating the fact that the CSA had corrected this "mistake." Again, the South recognized that there was a contradiction between the principles of US Constitutional rights and slavery and they feared that the US was on a path to resolving that contradiction by recognizing the biological fact that black people are people and, thus, entitled to the rights the Constitution grants to people.

Let me quote the VP of the CSA directly:

"The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

What's more, let's return to Lincoln for a moment. Lincoln actually recognized that he couldn't simply do away with slavery through executive action and repeatedly said as much. His plan was to constrain the spread of slavery, encourage public opinion against it, and then end it where it existed through a buy-back program. All of these solutions were legal. Congress, however, had the power of creating amendments and could end slavery through one. And they did. Which, again, was legal, no matter how much you seem upset that it took away "rights" from murdering, raping tyrants. Funny how you complain about figurative "rape" while turning a blind eye to ACTUAL rape, by the way.

Anyway, let me know if anything I said requires further elucidation.

 

You can stop replying to me, I have already stated I no longer wish to explain basic mathematics to you any longer.

 

The Northerners, ran on a platform of ending slavery. That is a whole lot more than just your little bit.

 

The problem is that 100% minus 34% equals 66% but I doubt if you fully grasp it.

 

Dude, The post you replied to is a direct copy of the poll results.
Give it up. You can't even read your own poll.

1. 
   No.
   21 vote(s)
   50.0%

In normal world's, 50% /= to 66%.

 

I only repeat it because you missed it. Only 34% say the Confederate flag symbolizes hate. A full 66% do not. Just take a look at the poll and you'll see for yourself.

 

The only way to argue that it doesn't stand for hate is to argue that it doesn't stand for the Confederacy. Polls can't change historical facts. In which case why even call it a "Confederate" flag?

 

You only repeat because you got caught in your fabrication.

Your poll is
Yes
No
It's complicated.

At the time, 50% said NO, it's not a symbol of hate. Not 66% as you claim over and over and over. Wrongly.

 

Since when are historical facts up to a vote anyway? I've been in a thread before where more than half of the active participants were denying the Holocaust. If we had taken a poll, would that have meant that the Holocaust didn't happen? Of course not.

 

This is mostly true. And that is why the poll is useful. The thread is entitled, "Is Confederate flag a symbol of hate?" It is an important and relative question because snowflakes are trying to drum up an evil "real-time" scare but the poll (that is more relevant than ever) shows that it is not true. It is, after all, a question of what it means to people ... and the people have spoken with only 34% saying that it means "hate". Bad news for the snowflakes.

 

Southerners IMO, are feeling guilty about the civil war and try to justify the reason for it and the idolizing of symbols of the traitors and the traitor states.

 

I don’t care, you are incorrect in your assessment and no level logic will help — I have asked you to stop harassing me

 

Then they are ignoring its historical meaning. That's fine, but their choices are between hate and historical revisionism (and quite the "snowflaky" historical revisionism at that). I have no respect for either, personally.

 

Then they are ignoring its historical meaning. That's fine, but their choices are between hate and historical revisionism (and quite the "snowflaky" historical revisionism at that). I have no respect for either, personally.