Is Confederate flag a symbol of hate?

Slavery existed in the border states -- Southern slaveholding states who did not secede. It also existed in DC, but Lincoln put an end to that. The Confederacy, by their own admission, primarily seceded over slavery and founded a new nation to preserve slavery. It was, at best, a pro-slavery rebellion.

 

Oops

 

Yes, rebelling against the United States for the express and admitted purpose of owning other human beings and then crying afterward about how all you wanted was freedom and self-determination is a big oops.

 

I was going to point out that the south claimed all Federal land in seceded states. It was an act of war. Just like trying to take over a Federal building in Seattle.

 

Yep, they had contractually agreed that the land belong to the Feds and the Feds enforced that contract. The Confederacy responded with murder.

 

War is murder.

 

Well right now, this seems to be confined to localities where the government sides with the rioters and protesters. It was Mark and Patricia McCloskey who were arrested, not the BLM protesters that were threatening them.

But I really don't like the idea of a crowd of torch welding antifa outside of someone's home when there are kids inside because they didn't like someones bumpersticker or tweet.

 

I don't think terrorism is the right word in this circumstance. It was war.

 

The story I've read is that the rioters tore up some of the property at their home. If so, then the BLM/ANTIFA thugs were lucky they weren't shot.

Of course, in a lib-infested crap hole like St. Louis, it's no surprise that Mark McCloskey and his wife were arrested for defending their home, and the thugs walked away free. Ever been to St. Louis? Or even worse, ever been to East St. Louis? Do ANYTHING to avoid it!

 

so is hanging offensive content in ones front yard that everyone can see like swastikas and Confederate flags, that was my point - one invites the other

as I said, both are legal, both are also rude, both can be true - legal does not equal good

 

You actually think that's equivalent? Having a rebel flag in your front yard vs a group of people showing up at your house at night to scream at you? The flag in this case would be a zoning or homeowners association issue. Having a mob show up at your home at night is a different order. It's like what the Klan did back in the day.

 

The Klan didn't just show up on sidewalks with signs. They firebombed houses. They murdered people. No, protesting on a sidewalk is no "like what the Klan did back in they day."

 

They did all that, but they also terrorized people. Isn't that the purpose of your antifa showing up at someones home at night?

 

"My" antifa? Looks like the homework fails will continue. Wish I could say I was surprised.

 

No you should not. On private property.
But that isn't the issue being discussed.
It's on public spaces where the issues are being discussed.

 

There are some situations where I think the confederate flag is fine and there are some in which I think it is inappropriate. I guess it is the difference between art and porn when it comes to a naked body.

 

There were numerous accounts, yardmeat, of marauding Union soldiers under Sherman killing indiscriminately -- sometimes so that they could steal everything they found before utterly destroying everything else.

Interestingly, the Wehrmacht soldiers sometimes did much the same thing -- because they moved across Eastern Europe and into Russia so fast that they outran their supply convoys and needed food (although the Soviets destroyed everything or carted it away before the Germans got there).

By contrast, the Union soldiers under Sherman were well-supplied and had plenty to eat, drink, and 'amuse' themselves with. But, it was more 'amusing' to Sherman and his army to completely devastate an already helpless civilian population, steal what little they had left, and kill them on the spot if they protested or resisted in any way.

Your hero? He certainly wasn't admired by his fellow high-ranking Union officers, as ArmySoldier has already told you in a post above. Sherman had already had a nervous breakdown and had been relieved of a previous command early in the Civil War because of mental 'issues' before Grant put him in charge of finishing off the deep South. In today's world, he'd be considered to too unpredictably dangerous and unstable to be put in command of any military formation, for good reason.

None of this has anything to do with the Confederate flag(s), or "hate", or any of the ad hoc 21st-century memes that flood forums all over the internet today. But, on reflection, what Sherman did to those helpless Southern civilians long ago left the lasting impression that the flag of the United States was a symbol of vicious, murderous hatred to Southerners long after the Civil War ended....

 

Slavery was legal in the United States before, during and after the war and had Lincoln won at Bull Run and forced a quick end to the war the Confederate states would have been brought back in with their slavery intact. The Confederate Battle flag does not even represent the government of the Confederacy but the many who died or suffered protecting their homes and farms and businesses and schools and churches and their lives anb families because of the invasion by a foreign army.

 

Unlike democracies, our country was founded as a Republic (Article 4 Section 4 says that is guaranteed by the federal government). Unlike democracies, the United States was the only country that had a Bill of Rights that limited the government. Of course, the words are still there, but that government has long since passed and we are more of a corporation that a country with a functioning government.

We did not have limitations on our Rights. They were presumed to be unalienable until the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. Then, like your country, the courts decided our Rights were not Rights, but mere privileges and immunities pursuant to the language of the 14th Amendment. Now what we say is censored; the wrong words may constitute "hate speech" and what we think can be illegal as well. Something called "social policy" is enforced over the law even though we don't know who runs social policy. But I digress. The hate campaign against the white people in the United States is forcing them to either abandon their culture, heritage and history OR fight back. Either way, whether it happens at the end of this election cycle OR Trump gets reelected, Trump is the last president of the United States. Demonizing the Confederate flag is just a start for those who hate the principles upon which the Republic was built.

 

You are right only in theory.

 

not sure what you mean, both are legal, both are annoying to others....

 

In general, I ask myself what the difference between republic and democracy is or should be for you ... if you make a difference here.
First of all, there is the problem that there is not just one general definition for both terms. Don't forget that even the clearest dictatorships all too often call themselves democracy / democratic and / or republic and so their definition is another one as yours and mine.
Secondly, it is amusing that the definition of democracy and republic according to the dictionary is almost identical in content: A form of government in which representatives elected by the people exercise state power for a limited time (according to the electoral periods).
I have the assumption that you are confusing both terms with the term federalism a little bit, or that you are throwing everything together here.
The core problem and why your Bill of Rights exists is the point that you are a federation. That was the subject of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 and, as is well known, there were well-known opponents of the federation / a federal system such as for example Samuel Adams.
The Bill of Rights therefore exists as a compromise to ensure equality between the individual federal states and the entire federal government. At first this is good without any ifs or buts ... but from the beginning it caused a lot of problems in terms of responsibilities and a sufficiently functioning and capable federal government. As an example, look at your currency, the American dollar and its history:

Only one federal ministry or institution can and should have the say, because the US Dollar is the common currency of all federal states. And the core here is the term common, because everything that is common is and must be a federal matter!

Only one federal ministry or institution can and should have the say, because it is the common currency of all federal states. And the core here is the term communal, because everything that is communal is and must be a federal matter!

The fact that you designate the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as illegal clearly shows that you are an opponent of federalism. Yes, the 14th Amendment is powerful, but it is the addition that made you a nation in the first place!
Above all, the very broadly interpretable terms of “privileges and immunities of citizens”, “due process of law” and “equal protection of the laws” have been used time and again to take legal action against all kinds of discrimination or for the legal protection of fundamental rights to postulate that are not expressly mentioned by the constitution. The direct binding nature of most of the fundamental rights named in the original text of the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights, not only with regard to the legislative activities of Congress expressly mentioned therein, but also with regard to acts of the executive branch and the institutions of the individual states, was justified by this article.

And honestly ... your opionion about hate against whits is not shared by me and I call this nonsense. And your stetememnt of Trump as last US President is really nonsense, becauee he violates the rights of the states massive and above all, he is the worst US President the USA ever had in history.
But a discussion about it is useless due to fact that it will only be a clash of opinions and not more

 

What Klan would that be? It's had many versions.

 

You completely ignore the fact (FACT) that slavery was legal in 1860, and, throughout the world, for MILLENNIA preceding that.

Slavery was an accepted way of life -- especially among the African negro tribes who practiced it routinely from 'the dawn of time' and made a thriving business of selling other African negroes as slaves to Europeans, Americans, or anyone else who wanted them!

You claim to be an expert on the American Civil War, yardmeat -- do you really not know all this...? Of COURSE you do....

The RIGHT to own slaves, play tiddlywinks, or do ANY other damned thing -- in accordance with the Constitution and its Amendments is what Southerners were correctly agitated about and fearful of! They saw an intrusive, abusive, illegal, and unconstitutional movement in the FEDERAL government gaining traction that threatened to destroy the settled way of life in their states, and so Southerners decided to leave and make their own country -- but got destroyed by that same tyrannical, overbearing FEDERAL government for doing so....

Paint it anyway you like -- deep in your scholastic musings you KNOW that much is true, and it's been pointed here a dozen times....

 

So much to respond to. IF you're interested, this is a good explanation of the differences between a Republic and a Democracy by the people tasked with defending America when it still had some semblance of a Republic:

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/misc/citizenship-tm2000-25.pdf

Feel free to ignore it since you've looked up modern terminology after the Republic came to an end here. We just changed the meaning of words over time to make you be able to have a better argument.

Our Bill of Rights codified the unalienable Rights our founders fought to secure in the War of Independence.

The 14th Amendment did not make us a nation. It eliminated our Rights and made slaves out of the people.

And if you were a victim of genocide, you'd not so arrogantly be claiming that it is nonsense. I'm not confused about anything.