Confederate Emblems to be Removed Nationwide.

[The Black Forrest]

Well from what im gathing from this thread is abput 75% of the population is prepared to without a thought or resistance hand over little by little all their rights to the federal government because popular opinion instructs them to.

Wouldn't have been easier to scream "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!"

It's interesting you think nobody thought about this. If that was the case, why did they want them off public sites? Seriously, the fact many people don't like them; your claim falls short.

Before this hit the mainstream media this wasnt even on anyones mind.

Sorry lad, it's been on everybodies mind for a long time. Especially when they go up for racist reasons. The flag wasn't orginally raised for "southern culture" it went up in response to *shock* desegregation in the 60s. Heck just recently a couple "white pride"' types had to attach it to their trucks and drive around a Cinco De mayo event.

Now that it is everyone is hoping on the pc bandwagon

Where is this pc bandwagon? I keep hearing about it but can never locate it.

yet again to take away another part of history and first amendment rights.

Wellllll. History isn't being changed and nobody said you can't fly it home. I prefer you do. It's a good label.

Trampling on all those who even think to have a differing opinion labling them "racist" "uneducated" or "backwards".

Trying to white wash the history is what get's you labeled.

The media says it and people just chirp the talking points without question.

Wake up sheeple!

Do i agree with the confederacy? No, do I believe in slavery? Hell no. But going on a warpath to tell people they cant raise a flag or use a flag to represent something they believe to be an issue of "states rights" or "resistance to central government is tyranny.

You believe in the Confederacy and obviously the white washed history. Again, the flag is not banned for personal use.

And of course this generation of followers will continoue their you either believe what we beleive or your a ... (Racist, nazi, hateful) person and should be ... (Imprisoned, exiled, whatever).

Wake up sheeple!

So in closing America is going to hell in a handbasket slowly but surely.

Yes it is. Just like when we allowed the races to marry and the homosexuals to marry!

Wake up sheeple!

[The Black Forrest]

Yet you rock up to the 88th page of this thread and start talking about people being told they can't raise a flag when that isn't happening at all.

You have demonstrated that you have literally zero knowledge about the topic of this thread, and you presume to tell me what it is I want?

Read the title of the thread and answer your own question.

He has and has been an active participant. While you join in on the 88th page and "chirp" about things that aren't happening.

-edit-

Oh and since you haven't bothered. Here is a repost of something you should read:

*cough cough fugitive slave act cough*

This, IN GODDAMNED SPADES.

I am OH so sick to death of Confederate apologists droning on and on about how horrible things had gotten and/or were about to get for the South, to the point where the Southern States had to secede "in order to preserve their way of life". Frankly speaking, that is so much horse piss.

I will issue the same challenge I have always issued: Give me a bill of particulars. Tell me what horrible things the evil imperialist Northerners had done, were doing, or were about to do that would have ended the South's "way of life", and be fucking SPECIFIC. I want laws, I want regulations, I want ACTUAL injuries, I want something tangible to back up these asinine claims of Northern "tyranny".

Because I just don't see them. I really, REALLY don't.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence he spoke of or alluded to ACTUAL injuries: The Stamp Act and tea taxes, laws limiting the westward expansion of the colonies, the overturning of colonial charters and the dismissal of colonial legislatures. He was able to point to SPECIFIC ways in which the Crown had infringed upon the rights and liberties of American colonists and had visited harm upon the colonies. So where's the corresponding list of horribles supporting Southern secession? Answer: THERE ISN'T ONE.

Which leads the critical mind to go back and look at the actual historical record and reexamine it. Yes, I understand that all (or at least most of us) were taught in school that the South was wronged; but in point of fact a serious look at the record shows that the American Civil War is the one historical example that proves (as in "puts to the test") the old adage about the victors writing the history books. Somehow in America we elected to pacify the South (presumably in the name of healing the wounds of war and reuniting a deeply divided country) by letting the LOSERS write the history books, so that they wouldn't feel so bad about losing. "The Lost Cause" became an American myth, to the point where it's crowded out the real history of the era.

Men don't attempt to overthrow their government without reason, and that's as true here as anywhere else. But without a REAL train of abuses (i.e. Northern "tyranny") to justify the war, we must look elsewhere for answers. It is here that my personal journey of rediscovery began, just four years ago. In debating the origins of the American Civil War here on this very forum, I found myself forced to go back and look at the facts, and discovered to my horror that the story I'd been fed as a schoolchild — and Hell, I mean a NORTHERN schoolchild, growing up in what had been a strongly abolitionist State (Michigan) — was a complete crock of Neo-Confederate shit.

What I discovered is that the SOUTH controlled the Federal government in the years leading up to the American Civil War; what I discovered was that NORTHERN States were the ones that had their laws and traditions overturned by that pro-Southern Federal government; that it was the NORTHERN way of life that was in danger in the years leading up to the Civil War; and that the war was not about getting rid of slavery (not at first anyway), but about the NORTH fighting back against aggressive SOUTHERN efforts to ram it down the NORTHERN throats and make it the law of the land EVERYWHERE, irrespective of the wishes of NORTHERN voters.

This led directly to one of the most remarkable POLITICAL revolutions in history: The overnight creation of a new political Party (i.e., the Republican Party) that was pledged to defend the interests of the North. Schooled in a political ethic (going back to the American revolution itself) that asserted that the proper place to take action against a government that was acting in contravention to one's interests was at the BALLOT BOX, the people of the North did exactly that: They VOTED to tell the South that they'd had enough, and that it was time that THEIR interests be taken seriously for a change.

And that's what 1860 was: A bloodless revolution, conducted at the ballot box, aimed at overturning Southern power and privilege, and restoring balance to a political system that had neglected Northern interests for FAR too long.

So what was the South's response to this, to the loss of their political supremacy over the North? In a word, war: They rejected the election of 1860 as an affront to their political hegemony, and turned to force instead. They armed and raised State militias and seized Federal arsenals and forts, all for the purpose of bringing down the very Union to which they had pledged their eternal loyalty so many years before. They sought to maintain through force of arms that which they could no longer maintain through moral suasion or political power, rejecting democracy in favor oligarchic rule on behalf of a throughly corrupt slave-owning planter aristocracy.

Feel free to challenge me on these statements: I am more that ready to support them. But if you're going to do so, be ready to defend YOUR position as well. Show me, in Thomas Jefferson's words, the "long train of abuses and usurpations... all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these [i.e. the Southern] States." Show me how secession and rebellion against the Federal government was even remotely justified, and for what just causes it was undertaken.

Because if you can't do that, then you don't have even the remotest shred of an argument.

---

As for the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag (a/k/a the Southern Cross), people (wrongly) act as though this is something that the South has been doing forever.

It isn't.

The Southern Cross started popping up everywhere only back in the 1960s, and only in reaction to calls for the South to end segregation and to recognize the rights of their large yet largely unrepresented and oppressed black populations. Few people alive today really comprehend just how horrible "separate but equal" really was. In many ways, the Jim Crow South was a land in which the words Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 [1857] were utterly manifest: One in which African-Americans were treated as "altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and [considered] so far inferior [to whites], that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". A white man could literally walk up and steal a black man's savings, house, land, livestock, and personal possessions IN BROAD DAYLIGHT AND IN THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY BOTH LIVED, and not be punished for it. Blacks existed in the South as people utterly bereft of legal rights, subject to the whims of any white man or woman around them, and in many cases could even be beaten or killed with complete impunity by their white neighbors. This was what life was like in the South IN MY LIFETIME; at the very moment in time when this great Nation was supposedly fighting to stop Communist oppression in a Cold War overseas, we were actively oppressing upwards of 10% of our own populace right here at home.

Many in the North were willfully ignorant of these truths, even though they had been known for years. We'd seen photographs of Dixie's "strange fruit"; we KNEW that life in the South was in many ways intolerable for Southern blacks, but for the most part we didn't care.

Or at least we didn't care until we suddenly did, much as as happened in this last week, when we pretended that racially motivated hatred isn't really something blacks have to face in America until we suddenly couldn't any more, until the shooting of nine parishioners engaged in Bible study in the oldest African-American church in the South (i.e., "Mother" Emanuel) finally caused the scales to fall from our eyes and made us see what we hadn't wanted to see: That the vile fruit of racism is really still out there, and has to be dealt with if we're going to go forward. The same thing happened in the Sixties: Dogs and fire hoses turned on children, white civil rights workers murdered while helping blacks register for the vote, Freedom Riders beaten and buses set on fire, and even the murder of a decorated black Army officer heading back home from maneuvers right at the height of the war in Vietnam. If Bubba Redneck was going to help Victor Charlie in killing God-damned American soldiers IN WARTIME, the North and the West thought, well then fuck all those crackers and fuck them all HARD...

In response to rising awareness on the part of the rest of the country to the evils of Jim Crow, the South hunkered down and adopted an openly belligerent, rejectionist posture. Suddenly Confederate flags popped up everywhere, and Southern politicans droned on and on about "States' Rights". And in the midst of this political counter-reformation, racists North and South alike "reinvented" the "Lost Cause": They began to rehabilitate the Confederacy and its history, baldly asserting that secession had not been about slavery at all, but rather about "other issues", the foremost of which was "States' Rights".

By which Southerners MEANT "the right to abuse the shit out of our niggers if we damned well want to!"

At a minimum, this was nothing short of historical appropriation: Grabbing a past symbol, movement, or event, and appropriating it for contemporary political purposes. In this case, however, it only makes the Southern Cross an even more despicable symbol as a consequence. It's like the Nazis grabbing the swastika (an ancient symbol of power, either as a representation of the sun and its passage through the sky and/or progression through the seasons ["the wheel of time"], or as the hammer of Thor, the divine wrath of the hero-god in opposition to the enemies of humanity) and turning it into a symbol of hatred, aggression, and genocide; only in the case of the Southern Cross, the symbol being appropriated was originally the flag of those who fought to preserve and expand the evil institution of African slavery, reborn as the symbol of resistance by the great-grandchildren of those who fought to maintain slavery to the very idea that great-grandchildren of the very slaves freed in that war should be allowed to enjoy any measure of fundamental human rights.

IOW, the Southern Cross became a symbol of evil pressed into service anew in defense of further evil, for the sake of victimizing the descendants of the victims of slavery by denying them the full measure of liberty to which all human beings are fundamentally entitled.

But no, "heritage", right?

Bullshit.

No one gave much of a rat's ass about the Southern Cross until the Civil Rights movement came along. If it wasn't part of Southern heritage before the 1960s. how can any claim that it's a symbol of Southern "heritage" now be taken seriously, especially when most of the defenders of Southern "heritage" don't even know what that "heritage" entails?

---

That said, I'm not against the use of the Southern Cross in limited ways. It's a part of history, and so it should be kept that way. Let it sit in museums, underneath glass cases; let it be carried into faux battle during historical re-enactments (which serve a valuable role in teaching history, in so far as sometimes actually watching volunteers re-enact a historical battle can help us better understand what happened in that battle). Let it continue to accompany books, articles, and simulation games about the Civil War: These are the rightful roles of any historical symbol, good or evil.

But let those who would fly or display the Southern Cross (or any other flag of the Confederacy) understand what it is they are embracing: An unlawful rebellion against the lawfully constituted government of the United States, whose aim was to overturn a lawful national election by force in the name of subjugating the rest of the country to the interests of just one region, and then to the interests of just one segment of that region's society, all for the sake of their personal enrichment and to the detriment of everybody else. A Confederate America would have been a morally bankrupt and self-destructive Hell-hole, and we Americans would be international pariahs (or worse) today if that viper had not been slain by the likes of Lincoln, Grant, Farragut, Sherman (yes, Sherman), Sheridan, Custer (yes, even him, too), and a host of others. And yes, while we can respect the bravery, skill, and heroism of men like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, we must never forget that they broke their vows (they were, after all, commissioned officers in the UNITED STATES ARMY and thus sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the UNITED STATES — a sacred oath they BROKE), and did so on behalf of an unjust cause that was borne of a desire to protect the imagined "right" of men and women to own other men and women and steal their life's work — nay, to steal their VERY LIVES THEMSELVES. Nothing done in the defense of slavery could ever be noble; no man serving such a cause can ever said to have done right in doing so.

So yeah, it's time to take it down and put it away. The Southern Cross should be confined to the same historical hole as the Nazi swastika, or the Soviet hammer and sickle, and no person flying it as a symbol of anything should ever be respected for doing so.

[Achesia]

Well from what im gathing from this thread is abput 75% of the population is prepared to without a thought or resistance hand over little by little all their rights to the federal government because popular opinion instructs them to.

Wouldn't have been easier to scream "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!"

It's interesting you think nobody thought about this. If that was the case, why did they want them off public sites? Seriously, the fact many people don't like them; your claim falls short.

Before this hit the mainstream media this wasnt even on anyones mind.

Sorry lad, it's been on everybodies mind for a long time. Especially when they go up for racist reasons. The flag wasn't orginally raised for "southern culture" it went up in response to *shock* desegregation in the 60s. Heck just recently a couple "white pride"' types had to attach it to their trucks and drive around a Cinco De mayo event.

Now that it is everyone is hoping on the pc bandwagon

Where is this pc bandwagon? I keep hearing about it but can never locate it.

yet again to take away another part of history and first amendment rights.

Wellllll. History isn't being changed and nobody said you can't fly it home. I prefer you do. It's a good label.

Trampling on all those who even think to have a differing opinion labling them "racist" "uneducated" or "backwards".

Trying to white wash the history is what get's you labeled.

The media says it and people just chirp the talking points without question.

Wake up sheeple!

Do i agree with the confederacy? No, do I believe in slavery? Hell no. But going on a warpath to tell people they cant raise a flag or use a flag to represent something they believe to be an issue of "states rights" or "resistance to central government is tyranny.

You believe in the Confederacy and obviously the white washed history. Again, the flag is not banned for personal use.

And of course this generation of followers will continoue their you either believe what we beleive or your a ... (Racist, nazi, hateful) person and should be ... (Imprisoned, exiled, whatever).

Wake up sheeple!

So in closing America is going to hell in a handbasket slowly but surely.

Yes it is. Just like when we allowed the races to marry and the homosexuals to marry!

Wake up sheeple!

Again the ignorance of name calling that because i dont believe what you do im a racist.

[The Black Forrest]

Wouldn't have been easier to scream "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!"

It's interesting you think nobody thought about this. If that was the case, why did they want them off public sites? Seriously, the fact many people don't like them; your claim falls short.



Sorry lad, it's been on everybodies mind for a long time. Especially when they go up for racist reasons. The flag wasn't orginally raised for "southern culture" it went up in response to *shock* desegregation in the 60s. Heck just recently a couple "white pride"' types had to attach it to their trucks and drive around a Cinco De mayo event.



Where is this pc bandwagon? I keep hearing about it but can never locate it.



Wellllll. History isn't being changed and nobody said you can't fly it home. I prefer you do. It's a good label.



Trying to white wash the history is what get's you labeled.



Wake up sheeple!



You believe in the Confederacy and obviously the white washed history. Again, the flag is not banned for personal use.



Wake up sheeple!



Yes it is. Just like when we allowed the races to marry and the homosexuals to marry!

Wake up sheeple!

Again the ignorance of name calling that because i dont believe what you do im a racist.

Ahhh the oppressed victim card.

[Achesia]

Read the title of the thread and answer your own question.

He has and has been an active participant. While you join in on the 88th page and "chirp" about things that aren't happening.

-edit-

Oh and since you haven't bothered. Here is a repost of something you should read:

This, IN GODDAMNED SPADES.

I am OH so sick to death of Confederate apologists droning on and on about how horrible things had gotten and/or were about to get for the South, to the point where the Southern States had to secede "in order to preserve their way of life". Frankly speaking, that is so much horse piss.

I will issue the same challenge I have always issued: Give me a bill of particulars. Tell me what horrible things the evil imperialist Northerners had done, were doing, or were about to do that would have ended the South's "way of life", and be fucking SPECIFIC. I want laws, I want regulations, I want ACTUAL injuries, I want something tangible to back up these asinine claims of Northern "tyranny".

Because I just don't see them. I really, REALLY don't.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence he spoke of or alluded to ACTUAL injuries: The Stamp Act and tea taxes, laws limiting the westward expansion of the colonies, the overturning of colonial charters and the dismissal of colonial legislatures. He was able to point to SPECIFIC ways in which the Crown had infringed upon the rights and liberties of American colonists and had visited harm upon the colonies. So where's the corresponding list of horribles supporting Southern secession? Answer: THERE ISN'T ONE.

Which leads the critical mind to go back and look at the actual historical record and reexamine it. Yes, I understand that all (or at least most of us) were taught in school that the South was wronged; but in point of fact a serious look at the record shows that the American Civil War is the one historical example that proves (as in "puts to the test") the old adage about the victors writing the history books. Somehow in America we elected to pacify the South (presumably in the name of healing the wounds of war and reuniting a deeply divided country) by letting the LOSERS write the history books, so that they wouldn't feel so bad about losing. "The Lost Cause" became an American myth, to the point where it's crowded out the real history of the era.

Men don't attempt to overthrow their government without reason, and that's as true here as anywhere else. But without a REAL train of abuses (i.e. Northern "tyranny") to justify the war, we must look elsewhere for answers. It is here that my personal journey of rediscovery began, just four years ago. In debating the origins of the American Civil War here on this very forum, I found myself forced to go back and look at the facts, and discovered to my horror that the story I'd been fed as a schoolchild — and Hell, I mean a NORTHERN schoolchild, growing up in what had been a strongly abolitionist State (Michigan) — was a complete crock of Neo-Confederate shit.

What I discovered is that the SOUTH controlled the Federal government in the years leading up to the American Civil War; what I discovered was that NORTHERN States were the ones that had their laws and traditions overturned by that pro-Southern Federal government; that it was the NORTHERN way of life that was in danger in the years leading up to the Civil War; and that the war was not about getting rid of slavery (not at first anyway), but about the NORTH fighting back against aggressive SOUTHERN efforts to ram it down the NORTHERN throats and make it the law of the land EVERYWHERE, irrespective of the wishes of NORTHERN voters.

This led directly to one of the most remarkable POLITICAL revolutions in history: The overnight creation of a new political Party (i.e., the Republican Party) that was pledged to defend the interests of the North. Schooled in a political ethic (going back to the American revolution itself) that asserted that the proper place to take action against a government that was acting in contravention to one's interests was at the BALLOT BOX, the people of the North did exactly that: They VOTED to tell the South that they'd had enough, and that it was time that THEIR interests be taken seriously for a change.

And that's what 1860 was: A bloodless revolution, conducted at the ballot box, aimed at overturning Southern power and privilege, and restoring balance to a political system that had neglected Northern interests for FAR too long.

So what was the South's response to this, to the loss of their political supremacy over the North? In a word, war: They rejected the election of 1860 as an affront to their political hegemony, and turned to force instead. They armed and raised State militias and seized Federal arsenals and forts, all for the purpose of bringing down the very Union to which they had pledged their eternal loyalty so many years before. They sought to maintain through force of arms that which they could no longer maintain through moral suasion or political power, rejecting democracy in favor oligarchic rule on behalf of a throughly corrupt slave-owning planter aristocracy.

Feel free to challenge me on these statements: I am more that ready to support them. But if you're going to do so, be ready to defend YOUR position as well. Show me, in Thomas Jefferson's words, the "long train of abuses and usurpations... all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these [i.e. the Southern] States." Show me how secession and rebellion against the Federal government was even remotely justified, and for what just causes it was undertaken.

Because if you can't do that, then you don't have even the remotest shred of an argument.

---

As for the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag (a/k/a the Southern Cross), people (wrongly) act as though this is something that the South has been doing forever.

It isn't.

The Southern Cross started popping up everywhere only back in the 1960s, and only in reaction to calls for the South to end segregation and to recognize the rights of their large yet largely unrepresented and oppressed black populations. Few people alive today really comprehend just how horrible "separate but equal" really was. In many ways, the Jim Crow South was a land in which the words Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 [1857] were utterly manifest: One in which African-Americans were treated as "altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and [considered] so far inferior [to whites], that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". A white man could literally walk up and steal a black man's savings, house, land, livestock, and personal possessions IN BROAD DAYLIGHT AND IN THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY BOTH LIVED, and not be punished for it. Blacks existed in the South as people utterly bereft of legal rights, subject to the whims of any white man or woman around them, and in many cases could even be beaten or killed with complete impunity by their white neighbors. This was what life was like in the South IN MY LIFETIME; at the very moment in time when this great Nation was supposedly fighting to stop Communist oppression in a Cold War overseas, we were actively oppressing upwards of 10% of our own populace right here at home.

Many in the North were willfully ignorant of these truths, even though they had been known for years. We'd seen photographs of Dixie's "strange fruit"; we KNEW that life in the South was in many ways intolerable for Southern blacks, but for the most part we didn't care.

Or at least we didn't care until we suddenly did, much as as happened in this last week, when we pretended that racially motivated hatred isn't really something blacks have to face in America until we suddenly couldn't any more, until the shooting of nine parishioners engaged in Bible study in the oldest African-American church in the South (i.e., "Mother" Emanuel) finally caused the scales to fall from our eyes and made us see what we hadn't wanted to see: That the vile fruit of racism is really still out there, and has to be dealt with if we're going to go forward. The same thing happened in the Sixties: Dogs and fire hoses turned on children, white civil rights workers murdered while helping blacks register for the vote, Freedom Riders beaten and buses set on fire, and even the murder of a decorated black Army officer heading back home from maneuvers right at the height of the war in Vietnam. If Bubba Redneck was going to help Victor Charlie in killing God-damned American soldiers IN WARTIME, the North and the West thought, well then fuck all those crackers and fuck them all HARD...

In response to rising awareness on the part of the rest of the country to the evils of Jim Crow, the South hunkered down and adopted an openly belligerent, rejectionist posture. Suddenly Confederate flags popped up everywhere, and Southern politicans droned on and on about "States' Rights". And in the midst of this political counter-reformation, racists North and South alike "reinvented" the "Lost Cause": They began to rehabilitate the Confederacy and its history, baldly asserting that secession had not been about slavery at all, but rather about "other issues", the foremost of which was "States' Rights".

By which Southerners MEANT "the right to abuse the shit out of our niggers if we damned well want to!"

At a minimum, this was nothing short of historical appropriation: Grabbing a past symbol, movement, or event, and appropriating it for contemporary political purposes. In this case, however, it only makes the Southern Cross an even more despicable symbol as a consequence. It's like the Nazis grabbing the swastika (an ancient symbol of power, either as a representation of the sun and its passage through the sky and/or progression through the seasons ["the wheel of time"], or as the hammer of Thor, the divine wrath of the hero-god in opposition to the enemies of humanity) and turning it into a symbol of hatred, aggression, and genocide; only in the case of the Southern Cross, the symbol being appropriated was originally the flag of those who fought to preserve and expand the evil institution of African slavery, reborn as the symbol of resistance by the great-grandchildren of those who fought to maintain slavery to the very idea that great-grandchildren of the very slaves freed in that war should be allowed to enjoy any measure of fundamental human rights.

IOW, the Southern Cross became a symbol of evil pressed into service anew in defense of further evil, for the sake of victimizing the descendants of the victims of slavery by denying them the full measure of liberty to which all human beings are fundamentally entitled.

But no, "heritage", right?

Bullshit.

No one gave much of a rat's ass about the Southern Cross until the Civil Rights movement came along. If it wasn't part of Southern heritage before the 1960s. how can any claim that it's a symbol of Southern "heritage" now be taken seriously, especially when most of the defenders of Southern "heritage" don't even know what that "heritage" entails?

---

That said, I'm not against the use of the Southern Cross in limited ways. It's a part of history, and so it should be kept that way. Let it sit in museums, underneath glass cases; let it be carried into faux battle during historical re-enactments (which serve a valuable role in teaching history, in so far as sometimes actually watching volunteers re-enact a historical battle can help us better understand what happened in that battle). Let it continue to accompany books, articles, and simulation games about the Civil War: These are the rightful roles of any historical symbol, good or evil.

But let those who would fly or display the Southern Cross (or any other flag of the Confederacy) understand what it is they are embracing: An unlawful rebellion against the lawfully constituted government of the United States, whose aim was to overturn a lawful national election by force in the name of subjugating the rest of the country to the interests of just one region, and then to the interests of just one segment of that region's society, all for the sake of their personal enrichment and to the detriment of everybody else. A Confederate America would have been a morally bankrupt and self-destructive Hell-hole, and we Americans would be international pariahs (or worse) today if that viper had not been slain by the likes of Lincoln, Grant, Farragut, Sherman (yes, Sherman), Sheridan, Custer (yes, even him, too), and a host of others. And yes, while we can respect the bravery, skill, and heroism of men like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, we must never forget that they broke their vows (they were, after all, commissioned officers in the UNITED STATES ARMY and thus sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the UNITED STATES — a sacred oath they BROKE), and did so on behalf of an unjust cause that was borne of a desire to protect the imagined "right" of men and women to own other men and women and steal their life's work — nay, to steal their VERY LIVES THEMSELVES. Nothing done in the defense of slavery could ever be noble; no man serving such a cause can ever said to have done right in doing so.

So yeah, it's time to take it down and put it away. The Southern Cross should be confined to the same historical hole as the Nazi swastika, or the Soviet hammer and sickle, and no person flying it as a symbol of anything should ever be respected for doing so.

Oh sorry didnt realize there was a rule that if a thread was beyond page 1 that Im not allowed to post an opinion on what the title clearly says. Will do. This isnt a good use of my time anyways.

[Ifreann]

Yet you rock up to the 88th page of this thread and start talking about people being told they can't raise a flag when that isn't happening at all.

You have demonstrated that you have literally zero knowledge about the topic of this thread, and you presume to tell me what it is I want?

Read the title of the thread and answer your own question.

I have read the title of the thread. I have been posting in this thread for longer than it has had that title. And I have read more than just the title, so I am aware of what is actually fucking happening. I am aware that the title of this thread does not accurately convey the facts of the situation. And more to the point, I know my own fucking opinion.

You, on the other hand, have clearly read nothing except the title of this thread and based upon that alone you decry the masses for just going along with what they're told. Very amusing.

[The Black Forrest]

*snip*

Oh sorry didnt realize there was a rule that if a thread was beyond page 1 that Im not allowed to post an opinion on what the title clearly says. Will do. This isnt a good use of my time anyways.

Oh there isn't a rule. It just doesn't help your cause when you basically make sheeple comments and assume ignorance without reviewing the thread.

Ignorance is never a good use of time.

[Achesia]

Read the title of the thread and answer your own question.

I have read the title of the thread. I have been posting in this thread for longer than it has had that title. And I have read more than just the title, so I am aware of what is actually fucking happening. I am aware that the title of this thread does not accurately convey the facts of the situation. And more to the point, I know my own fucking opinion.
You, on the other hand,

have clearly read nothing except the title of this thread and based upon that alone you decry the masses for just going along with what they're told. Very amusing.

I am glad that you have spent so much of your time on this thread great work I on the other hand Am not wasting anymore of mine.

[The Black Forrest]

I have read the title of the thread. I have been posting in this thread for longer than it has had that title. And I have read more than just the title, so I am aware of what is actually fucking happening. I am aware that the title of this thread does not accurately convey the facts of the situation. And more to the point, I know my own fucking opinion.
You, on the other hand,

have clearly read nothing except the title of this thread and based upon that alone you decry the masses for just going along with what they're told. Very amusing.

I am glad that you have spent so much of your time on this thread great work I on the other hand Am not wasting anymore of mine.

Ok. Take your ball and go home then.

[Ifreann]

I have read the title of the thread. I have been posting in this thread for longer than it has had that title. And I have read more than just the title, so I am aware of what is actually fucking happening. I am aware that the title of this thread does not accurately convey the facts of the situation. And more to the point, I know my own fucking opinion.
You, on the other hand,

have clearly read nothing except the title of this thread and based upon that alone you decry the masses for just going along with what they're told. Very amusing.

I am glad that you have spent so much of your time on this thread great work I on the other hand Am not wasting anymore of mine.

Clearly you are, as you are hanging around to tell us how you're not going to read anything or keep posting.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have read the title of the thread. I have been posting in this thread for longer than it has had that title. And I have read more than just the title, so I am aware of what is actually fucking happening. I am aware that the title of this thread does not accurately convey the facts of the situation. And more to the point, I know my own fucking opinion.
You, on the other hand,

have clearly read nothing except the title of this thread and based upon that alone you decry the masses for just going along with what they're told. Very amusing.

I am glad that you have spent so much of your time on this thread great work I on the other hand Am not wasting anymore of mine.

Everyone is using time... only some of us are wasting it.

Want to productively use time? Actually read Alien Space Bats' post - because you seem to be under the impression that your beliefs are being oppressed in this thread - while the simple truth is that your belief is demonstrably counter to all the evidence.

It's not being oppressed, it's just wrong.

But if you think you can prove otherwise, go ahead.

[Farnhamia]

Yet you rock up to the 88th page of this thread and start talking about people being told they can't raise a flag when that isn't happening at all.

You have demonstrated that you have literally zero knowledge about the topic of this thread, and you presume to tell me what it is I want?

Read the title of the thread and answer your own question.

It's a bad title and should really say, "Confederate Emblems Being Removed Nationwide." There has been no national edict ordering the removal of such things, nor has the Federal government or any State government banned their display. Move back to the topic, please, everyone, and stop quibbling over the title of the thread.

[Vassenor]

Read the title of the thread and answer your own question.

It's a bad title and should really say, "Confederate Emblems Being Removed Nationwide." There has been no national edict ordering the removal of such things, nor has the Federal government or any State government banned their display. Move back to the topic, please, everyone, and stop quibbling over the title of the thread.

I would have thought that "Institutions nationwide removing Confederate Emblems" might be better because it makes it less ambiguous whether this is a government edict or not. But I'm probably wrong. Usually am.

[Communist German States]

How many people will use Confederate emblems in defiance of same-sex marriage?

[Ifreann]

How many people will use Confederate emblems in defiance of same-sex marriage?

I'm sure some people are the right kind of stupid to go for that.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

How many people will use Confederate emblems in defiance of same-sex marriage?

I don't know, but people have used it in support of it.

[Communist German States]

How many people will use Confederate emblems in defiance of same-sex marriage?

I don't know, but people have used it in support of it.

That seems pretty contradictory.

[Laerod]

How many people will use Confederate emblems in defiance of same-sex marriage?

Probably not as many as used it in defiance of desegregation. The Confederacy was known for its racism more than its homophobia.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I don't know, but people have used it in support of it.

That seems pretty contradictory.

I think it's supposed to demonstrate that southern pride doesn't inherently include bigotry.

[Cannot think of a name]

How many people will use Confederate emblems in defiance of same-sex marriage?

Given the current confluence of current events they might lose track of what it is they're upset about five minutes in.

[Ifreann]

How many people will use Confederate emblems in defiance of same-sex marriage?

Given the current confluence of current events they might lose track of what it is they're upset about five minutes in.

"WHAT DO WE WANT?!"
"WE'RE NOT SURE!"
"WHEN DO WE WANT IT?!"
"WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU!"

[Alien Space Bats]

People clearly only learned very minimal things about the Civil War, It wasn't necessarily a war on slavery, but a war on States Rights.

Yep. It was. You're absolutely right

It was all about the South getting pissed off about the fact that the Northern States exercised their right to elect a President and a Congress who represented THEIR interests and not those of the South.

It was all about the South getting pissed off about the fact that the Northern States didn't arrest abolitionists for speaking out against slavery, and that these same Northern States didn't ban their meetings, seize and burn their literature, and otherwise take action to shut down the abolitionist movement altogether.

It was all about the South getting pissed off about the fact that Northern voters and the legislators they elected didn't want to spend Northern resources catching runaway slaves, and that Northern citizens both openly sheltered runaways and complained angrily about getting pressed into posses to catch those runaways (along with any free blacks who might get swept up in the hunt along the way in what effectively amounted to Southern SLAVE RAIDS into the North) and hand them over to bounty hunters, who then took them South and sold them at auction for their personal profit.

It was all about the South getting angry at Northern legislatures for passing laws forbidding slave owners from bringing their slaves with them when the travelled into the North, or laws declaring that any slave who set foot on Northern soil should be considered both automatically and immediately free, or even for banning slavery at all.

No, the North just didn't get it: South Carolina could nullify a Federal law, because South Carolina was entitled to its "States' Rights" ― but Wisconsin couldn't nullify the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, because NORTHERN States didn't have those same rights. Southern States could permit Southern gentlemen to meet and agitate for the Federal government to enact a National Slave Code that would apply to the North, but Northern States were out of line in permitting abolitionists to meet and organize politically. And how dare the North allow a monstrosity like the Republican Party o the ballot, when it was banned in virtually every Southern State?!? How could the South tolerate such calumny from the lesser half of the country?!? Who in the Hell did they think they were?!? Didn't they realize whose damned country it was? God intended the South to govern American, not the North; who were these damned Yankees to resist that notion, and try to stick up for themselves?!?

Yes, the War WAS about States' Rights: Northerners expected to have and enjoy the same rights as Southerners, and when they finally asserted as much, the South took up arms and went to war against them.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

TL;DR I'm right.

Nobody asked you to be right.

[Alien Space Bats]

... things like the common idea of Southern Hospitality.

Yeah, because we Northerners NEVER invite folks over for dinner and treat them as honored guests.

We fucking kill and eat them, that's what WE do up North, yep.

It's a good thing the South invented Thanksgiving, that's all I have to say...

[The Conclucid Order]

... things like the common idea of Southern Hospitality.

Yeah, because we Northerners NEVER invite folks over for dinner and treat them as honored guests.

We fucking kill and eat them, that's what WE do up North, yep.

It's a good thing the South invented Thanksgiving, that's all I have to say...

Except thanksgiving was invented by the Plymouth Colony with the Native Americans up in the North...