Is Confederate flag a symbol of hate?

And even today as you are governed by the mixed multitude, you proclaim wow, just WOW!. WOW! America is more divided than when it was before the War of Northern Aggression. WOW! More than half of the voters hate, loathe and despise their Freedom and Liberty. WOW! China, Japan, North Korea and South Korea are homogeneous and YOU don't have a problem with it. WOW! OMG. Some folks just keep beating a dead horse and many of my points are being deleted, but WOW! The truth gets a big WOW! Today, the whites are the minority in the country their forefathers fought, bled and died to create.WOW, simply WOW! The United States fights for other countries to have a Right to self determination... like the we help the Israelis and nobody cries or whines. WOW!

The real problem with this whole discussion is that people use the term White supremacy as if it were an evil. But, that is our reality. And what liberals are not saying, because it is not prudent to hide the truth is that the United States of America was founded for the preservation, protection and advancement of whites. Why is that evil? Most of the world is divided along the lines of race and we don't squawk about it. There are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth. And who gives a rat's rear. You and every other liberal in this country have a house filled with junk made by slave labor and run by Chinese supremacists. White supremacy is only wrong because it is white. It's okay for everybody else on the face of this earth.

Today, the liberals will whine, cry and complain about a Confederate flag. Meanwhile these people are attacking our monuments, plaques, statues, and memorials. AND IT IS NOT LIMITED TO RACISTS. No way. Even the Lincoln Memorial has been attacked. The hate, intolerance, and prejudice is aimed at white people who dared to build a country that served their best interests and represented their culture. Letting the extremists get away with this constant attack on white people and trying to demonize them by repeating White supremacy over and over and over again only hides their true agenda. Well, guess what boys and girls. When Roy Taney, the Chief Justice of the United States explained what I just said from an historical point of view AND citing all the laws to prove it, there was ANOTHER flag flying over the White House and in the United States Supreme Court. That would be the AMERICAN FLAG! So, when Taney explained why blacks could not be citizens, THAT FLAG represented everything the liberals hate. And that boils down to the white race. ANYBODY that thinks the American is not the next target after the libs push their agenda off on us... it would break the rules to finish the thought.

Those who pretend to find slavery repulsive wash their hands with soap imported from China (about $258 MILLION DOLLARS worth per year) and South Korea (at about $25 MILLION DOLLARS worth per year). Now, tell me again how they find slavery and racial supremacy to be evil. Even when they find this stuff out, they do not boycott those countries products. So, not only do they wash their hands with the soap made by slave labor in racist countries, they import clothes, food, face masks, tools, electronics, and virtually everything else you can think of. Why if we boycotted China and South Korea, not spending our money on their junk, so many factories and suppliers would pop up in the United States that we would have ZERO UNEMPLOYMENT inside of a year.

Instead, we've borrowed over a TRILLION AND HALF DOLLARS from China since the War of Northern Aggression whereas we didn't owe them squat before that fiasco. So, slavery and racism are cool... just not "White Supremacy" and racism when practiced by whites. If the white people don't pay attention, they will one day wake up and find themselves slaves in their own country.

 

yes, it an evil.

 

What an interesting anecdote, but.....

1) It does not disprove the public's perception that the rebel flag is racist.
2) I don't need to guess which side you are on. You believe only whites should be US citizens.

BTW I never implied that I thought white southerners who embraced it as a pop symbol in the past were racist, but I'm not black.
Indeed, not all militias are racist, some are just full of militant anti-government nut-jobs, but some Klanners have dropped their sheets and put on camo to become "white patriots".

We have comprehension problems again, if you actually read what I wrote. The stars and stripes was around long before the stars and bars. All of America waves it. It means I'm proud of my Americanism. Waving the rebel flag by a racist few is different don't you think?

 

We aren't Germany and that isn't the Confederate flag. Neither does the Confederate flag in any way related to National Socialism.

 

Yes when slaves in the United States looked up they saw the Stars and Stripes even during and after the Civil War and it was a favorite of the KKK so let's get rid of it too since the HUGE gatherings of the Klan of the past waving it and marching with it and even the Klan now wave it and salute it.

Some of the public, lots of the public does not. Check the poll stats here.

You seem new around here, I'll let you in on something, comments like that will get your post deleted and you banned. Suggest you review the post rules. This is not one of the childish political forums where whoever can toss the biggest insults wins the debate.

 

1) Examples are not anecdotes. The proof to that is the results of the poll. The overwhelming majority say the Confederate flag is NOT a racist symbol. It would be nice if you could accept that

2) Don't you find it arrogant to presume to tell me what I think when you predicated your allegation on a LIE? I answered you fairly and honestly. I told you what I think on the issue is irrelevant because the facts discount any opinion I can formulate one way or another. I told you that blacks could not be citizens and explained in detail the reasoning thereof. Now what compels you to misrepresent me with your every post? What makes you take a back door approach to violate the rules here and insult me, bitch slap me and make false allegations when the facts have been diligently explained to you?

3) Regardless of how long the stars and stripes were around, which goes back to 1776, that flag was flying over Congress when the law was passed limiting citizenship to free whites. It, like the Confederate flag, will be in danger if the excesses of liberal extremism are not dealt with and ended now. The majority does not agree with your position. You may as well accept it.

I've had experience with civilian militias since 1987. I've never witnessed one that was "anti-government." Expecting the government to make good on its guarantees is hardly "anti-government," but, like your continual "racist" boogeyman allegations, it sounds like a way to silence those you agree with. The subtle name calling via the backdoor approach doesn't impress me. I'm willing to bet that you haven't tossed anything out of your house that was made in Japan, China, North Korea, or South Korea since we had out last run in. You support slavery. You just don't like admitting it. And I won't condemn whites for wanting to have their own homeland. We afford the luxury to all the other countries of the world. Americans go to Japan, respect their culture, observe their rules, and are not offended by it in any way, shape, fashion, or form. Americans are entitled to that same standard of acceptance.

 

Blues, very quickly I'm well aware of that fact. I'm aware Lincoln opposed succession and had previously proposed that the Southern States could retain slavery as an institution provided there was no attempt to secede (not because he was pro-slavery but because he wanted to avoid the issue succession and or the possibility of war as a result. I'll address other issues raised by you and Resistance shortly. Apologies but of late I've been too busy to reply to either of you in detail.

 

With 634 replies to this thread I doubt that you can add anything that hasn't been discussed thus far. The fact that social liberals don't accept the results (and the poll here would probably about the same no matter what cross section of America you polled) is really worrisome. Alexis de Tocquville, of whom I did not agree with on a lot of points, wrote:

"As soon as it is admitted that the whites and the emancipated blacks are placed upon the same territory in the situation of two alien communities, it will readily be understood that there are but two alternatives for the future; the negroes and the whites must either wholly part or wholly mingle. I have already expressed the conviction which I entertain as to the latter event. [21r] I do not imagine that the white and black races will ever live in any country upon an equal footing." (Democracy in America)

Alexis de Tocquville wrote that in 1831. Since then, we've fought the War of Northern Aggression and spent the last 155 years trying to make forced integration work. In the instant case we are arguing over whether a flag is a racist symbol. The social liberals cannot accept the fact that it's simply not viewed that way and we should accept it and move forward. No, the social liberals want to force their views down our throats and as long as there any vestige of the cultural values of the Posterity of the Constitution's framers present in America, there will be extremists wanting to get rid of the white people.

 

Still think I need to clarify & consolidate my POV and apologize to you Resistance.

 

I can appreciate a man that thinks it over before launching into a rant. Personally, I've been on every conceivable side of the argument over the last four decades. I know people you only read about.

 

It wasn't just the states that succeed which had slavery. Slavery was LEGAL in the United States during and even after the war ended. Lincoln did not start the war by occupying Ft. Sumter and attempting to reinforce from which he could blockade the port of Charleston

"Blockade, an act of war whereby one party blocks entry to or departure from a defined part of an enemy’s territory, most often its coasts. Blockades are regulated by international law and custom and require advance warning to neutral states and impartial application."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/blockade-warfare

or invade the Confederacy to end slavery.

The Confederate Battle Flag is flown in honor of those who died defending their homes, their farms, their churches, their businesses, their schools and their lives and families from that invasion.

 

more like to thumb their noses at black people.

 

before the Civil War, only white people could be citizens in the USA.

do you think we should go back to that?

 

False and uninformed opinion.

 

Brilliant!

 

What I think is of little relevance. We have had 155 years to make integration work. It doesn't. And, one race or the other is going to be the most dominant in numbers. That is a fact. Now, one race or another is going to be in the minority and what they want will not come to be.. That is a fact. Somebody's culture is going to be the dominant one. I cannot change reality for you.

At the present the mixed multitude, that multicultural hodge podge you think should be representative of America, is in charge of America and we are equally divided as the minorities try to eliminate the white people. The current immigration laws were purposely designed to get rid of the white race. BLM and antifa are looting, shooting, robbing, and burning America down in cities run by Democrat mayors, many of which are black. As a matter of fact, all the cities under siege are run by Democrat mayors. And who, sets the policy for the LEOs in a city? That would be the mayor. There is no speculation or advocacy for anything by reciting those facts.

The observation is that America is a country founded by whites for their advancement, preservation, and protection along with being the New Jerusalem of the Bible and that they, the white people, were the Israelites of the Bible. That observation is not what I believe. It is what an objective observer can prove.

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

http://usa-the-republic.com/sheldon emry/old jerusalem not new jerusalem.html

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/explanation/puritans.html (Note: my last link mentions my first link and Reagan wasn't the only one who quoted from that sermon in the first link. JFK and others did it too.

Our system of jurisprudence is built on Anglo Saxon laws.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=clr


edna and now you framed this as a moral argument. America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. Since the founders and framers of the Constitution believed this was the New Jerusalem, they were to maintain their cultural identity. As a result only whites were allowed to be citizens and miscegenation (inter-racial marriage) was outlawed. Our laws were predicated on Anglo Saxon laws. We were an Anglo Saxon country. The reality here is that somebody's values are going to reign supreme. Somebody is going to be supreme. The fact that we're working on more than 600 posts over a flag tells you that we are not going to have some fantasy nation wherein everybody respects the other guy's history, values, and system of governing. The non-whites do not like our form of government and are working 24 / 7 to change it, Ronstar. That too, is a fact. Consider this:

There are 52 immigrants and children of immigrants serving in the House of Representatives and 16 serving in the Senate. Counting both chambers, 57 of the 68 lawmakers who are immigrants or children of immigrants are Democrats. Ten others are Republicans, and one – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont – is an independent.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...are-immigrants-or-the-children-of-immigrants/

So, again, when Americans visit non-white countries, they observe their customs and their laws. We don't have a problem with it. And even YOU buy junk MADE IN CHINA. And you will do it tomorrow and the next day and the next. America, unlike other countries extended unalienable Rights to EVERYBODY and that wasn't good enough. No other foreign country did that. This cannot be a moral issue as those wailing about a stinking flag support slavery in foreign countries because they think they "save" money buying junk MADE IN CHINA. You guys cannot play a morality card here and claim moral high ground when you underwrite slavery in foreign countries. As a practical matter, somebody's race is going to be the dominant one and, consequently, perceived as the "supreme" one. That is a fact unless you want to do what Haiti did. Is that what YOU want for America?

 

white racists only gave up the idea of legally oppressing non-whites 45 years ago.

for most of the history of this country, we have been a bigoted, racist, oppressive regime.

only recently did we consider the idea of treating everyone as equals, with fairness...and we still cant get that right.

and now America is a mess. I think the lesson is "you reap what you sow".

White Supremacy ruined this country, starting with the importation of millions of black slaves, who were then thrown to the wolves after their slavery abruptly ended.

do i feel bad for white racists? do i shed a tear for their "predicament? not a drop.

they earned it all.

if white racists want to go make Alaska or Maine a white-only homeland, go for it. I wont stop you. the rest of the country belongs to all citizens.

 

What an absolute pantload! You keep dodging, ducking and denying the fact that at one point or another, every country on the globe has had government approved slavery. It didn't "ruin" those countries.

Slavery isn't ruining China; in Saudi Arabia you cannot publicly profess Christianity and NOBODY has any problem with Japan. Japan makes the claim to being the most racially pure country on the planet; however, I'd contest the claim... but they are still 98.5 percent homogeneous. And look at how they treated U.S. soldiers captured and put into concentration camps. Oh, that's right. Most of them were white and deserved to be beaten and tortured. Is Japan reaping what it's sown? That IS a trick question, BTW.

You are promoting a line of B.S. that stinks. Despite the fact that the United States, from its inception, allowed only whites to become citizens, people came from all over the world to seek out opportunities in our free market. More people came here than all other nations combined! And, insofar as slavery is concerned, the United States treated its slaves better than any other country ever had and has since. The average slave ate better, lived in better housing, and lived more years than their blue collar, white skin contemporaries. Adding insult to injury, the whites who were indentured slaves were mistreated so badly that over 60 percent of them didn't live long enough to buy their freedom.

White Supremacy (sic) did not ruin this country no more than its ruining China. And the reality is (though "White Supremacy" and slavery are different issues), the United States became the mightiest nation on the face of the earth during the period of slavery. By contrast, since the time of the 14th Amendment the United States has devolved into a third world cesspool and you cannot change the fact that the looting, shooting, rioting, burning, and divisiveness is going on in Democrat controlled communities with Democrat mayors - and many of them are BLACK! Those places are a testament to the superiority of multiculturalism. NOT.

Every great civilization that perished did so after multiculturalism took hold. IF the Posterity of the framers of the Constitution ever wake from their slumber and commit to the foundational principles upon which America was built and opt for racial policies like Japan, China, North Korea, South Korea, Zimbabwe, etc. we would restore this country back to its greatness. You'd like the United States to become like Venezuela, but you're going to have to fight a bit harder to take us down that road.

The reality is that what you propose is an overthrow of the legitimate, de jure, constitutional government purely out of hatred. BTW, where are all your posts advocating holding black slavers who sold their brethren into slavery in the first place? Do you have even ONE on this board? How about that post saying we should track down the families of the slave ships and see what we can take from them? Yeah, I figured you couldn't name those either.

 

The USA used to be a white supremacist republic, but we evolved and we are never going down that road ever again.

If you want to create a tiny little white supremacist enclave in some backwoods scum hole in the Ozarks or Alaska go right ahead. But the USA will never go down that disgusting road again.

Don't like it tough luck. this nation now belongs to all of its citizens and that will never change.

By the way this nation was stolen from non-white people by white supremacists. They committed genocide against tens of millions of non-white natives and enslaved millions of Africans.

Which simply proves the evil ingrained within white supremacy. however if you insist on having a white supremacist republic you're welcome to do it in Europe where it belongs.

This nation now belongs to all of its citizens. Don't like it move to Iceland.

 

No race or group has a right to travel thousands of miles steal a land from somebody else enslave people to do all the work massacre the natives and then claim they have the right to create a nation state just for them. At least the Jews had some historic link to the landaland a never-ending presence in Palestine. The white racists who came to America had no link and no right to do what they did.

If there was any justice very large parts of America would be given back to the native Americans and to the descendants of black slaves. but at the very least America has a moral obligation to be a free country belonging to all of its citizens

 

I dig his jacket

 

OK, sorry for the delay but here goes. Regarding the headline question for this thread I believe the answer (as in most cases) is that its contextual. Is the confederate flag a symbol of hate? In the hands of someone teaching or writing about history, a collector of civil war memorabilia or someone whose hobby is historical re-enactment. Probably not. Being waved by a white supremacist at a rally? As an symbol in and of itself it has historic significance and as long as that is clearly the context it is placed in there should be no problem. To argue otherwise is to suggest that all such symbols should be banned or destroyed outright and the next step down the road from that is banning or burning books for the same reason.

Regarding my previous post firstly Res apologies of any slur, it was written late at night my time after 2 days spent moving furniture, emptying closets and then re-packing them (getting re-carpeted). You don’t realize how much crap you have accumulated until you empty 5 bedrooms and refill them. But to begin.

To begin, I note the 10th Amendment does not address the issue of secession directly. I also note that up to time of the South’s secession the Supreme Court had never been required to issue a judgement on the question of secession or indeed many judgements relating to the 10th Amendment at all. The only one I could readily find (McCulloch v Maryland) lends more weight to the Federalist cause than it does the Secessionist even if (as I’m you are probably aware) it doesn’t address the question of secession.

If we take for example the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has issued guidance on the application of this right repeatedly over the years and has interpreted that right fairly broadly. Whether you agree with that interpretation or not the ability of Federal and State Governments to impose restrictions on the right of private citizens to bear arms have been repeatedly tested and in large measure clarified. Happy to be corrected but as far as I am aware no rulings had been made concerning States Rights as defined in the 10th Amendment especially as they might apply to secession.

So, in effect you have a blank legal canvas as to what conditions, undertakings or limitations might have been imposed by the Supreme Court on both the Republic and/or would be secessionists. And if you argue the 10th Amendment does grant the States the right of secession then you also have to acknowledge that the Supreme Court by default also has the right to interpret if or how the process of secession should proceed and what, if any constraints/limitations can be put in place on the process. No case before the Court ever sought to address these issues (at least so far as I can determine).

So yes, you can certainly mount an argument that the Souths secession was legally valid (as you have yourself done) but you can also argue the Federalist case (and if I needed to I’m sure I could find a constitutional lawyer who would do so) . The problem being that the wording of the 10th Amendment is very general in nature and susceptible to interpretation depending on the circumstances.

Secondly I note the that neither the Declaration of Independence of the Constitution sets out a mechanism or process for succession. Its one thing to vote for succession and for a State to declare itself sovereign but there is a raft of issues that go along with that declaration that need to be addressed.

For instance; would property rights of Northerners with holdings in the South be respected and vice versa? I note that immediately following the revolutionary war the Southern States rejected attempts by the North to protect the property rights of crown loyalists and promptly confiscated that property. Would they consider they had the right to do the same thing to citizens of the north who owned property there? And if so what restitution, if any would they offer? (In the real world lets face it probably none.)

Would loans agreements, guarantees and liens over property etc still be valid post separation? How was trade commerce to be managed across the new boarder? Would the Confederacy be obliged to take on a proportional share of the Federal Governments debt at the time of secession? As far as I am aware none of these issues were addressed in the southern secession process.So in general assuming secession is lawful any act of secession should intrinsically protect the rights of ALL effected parties both northern and southern. The Southern secessionists did not do this.

The current UK withdrawal from the EU provides, I think a perfect example of the complexities involved in withdrawing from a political union. That process has proven far more fraught with difficulty than joining was. Indeed pushed into action by Britain’s example the EU is now debating/drafting a formal process for submission to members states so that in the event the issue ever arises again there is clear mechanism and pathway to follow re: legal and commercial issues. Like marriage getting into a political union is easy, getting out can be messy.

So (1) There is no clarity around the issue of secession with in the 10th Amendment itself. You can argue for your interpretation of the wording certainly but equally another person could argue for the Federalist’s. This is because (2) the Supreme Court was never called upon adjudicate on the question of secession so there is/was no valid legal precedent to provide guidance. (3) issues relating to the secession process itself and what if any legal obligations were imposed on both sides were not spelled out by the secessionist States in their declarations nor were basic legal protections offered to those impacted by secession.

So even allowing that citizens of the southern States had the legal right to secede (which was legally untested), citizens of all States had legal rights that should have been protected during the process. Those rights should have been addressed by the Confederate States at the time but were not.

And none of the above of course addresses the fact that slavery as an institution would have continued in the south even allowing for a negotiated peaceful secession. Oh, with a generation or so industrialization would have started eroding the economic basis for slavery (indeed it already had started doing so). But what then the legal status of those unwanted slaves and their descendants? There is no way in a secessionist South would reasonably be expected to grant full rights and citizenship to that part of their population, not for decades at least and probably not unless forced to via external pressure. The only realistic outcome would be apartheid - leading to continued oppression of a disenfranchised black underclass. And of course, ongoing friction with the more populated and industrially powerful Federalist Northern States. So in reality all a ‘peaceful’ succession could reasonably have been expected to achieve would be to ‘kick the can down the road’ a couple of decades or so before the repercussions of slavery came back to bite once again.

And finally of course regardless of whatever the legal situation the south fired first then lost. The victor always gets to decide the rules.

 

England, Sweden, Ireland, all the nations of the Europe have the right to make their countries nation states and have preferences for members of the nation.

but colonial nations like Canada, USA, Argentina, Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand, have NO such moral right!!!! we traveled thousands of miles to conquer these lands and massacre the natives, we have no right to make them nation-states.

white nation states belong in Europe, only.

 

OMG. That is inaccurate and dishonest. Try again.

 

How is it you skip so much American history? The colonists separated from the rule of King George. The seceded (not succeed as you keep posting). The colonists broke ties with the tyranny of King George. This is not rocket science. Nobody needed to test anything regarding the Right of secession. Look, people create a freaking word and then refuse to understand other terms mean the same thing. Secession is separation. The words are synonyms:

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/secession

Now look at this closely from the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I will agree with you that to the victor goes the spoils. But, you have Ronstar on here, claiming that it is somehow wrong to take the land of others by force. So, either you believe in the Right of Conquest or you don't. So, let's say you do. Okay, the South got defeated, but then they were brought into a government wherein the Constitution ceased to exist. Southerners were lied to; they were duped. Now, they have no Rights on the basis of outright LIES. I'd say when they understand what happened, you might understand why our forefathers left the people with the Second Amendment. We already fought a war to establish that you have a Right to secede. But, the South was brought back into a Union wherein the Constitution was being dismantled - so they entered the agreement to end the war predicated on a lie.

Many people think we have Rights that we do not have and have not had since the Constitution was destroyed. Wars have been fought when people were forced into situations such as the North created here. We are living under a de facto government, forced to observe laws that the South never agreed to and that nullify the Rights our forefathers, fought, bled and died to secure for us in the War of Independence. It appears to me that we're about to go through another war to straighten it out. IF the Posterity of the framers of the Constitution figure it out, the mixed multitude won't win the next time around.