Confederate Emblems to be Removed Nationwide.

[Havenburgh]

It shouldn't of been removed. even though I am against it, people should have the freedom to fly whatever flag they want. if they want to remove the flag, then they should remove all Soviet flags, ban serbian flags, ban even the American flag because we have killed our fair share of Native Americans. also look at manifest destiny! look at what we have done against communist agendas. look at agent orange and what we done in vietnam. look at what we are doing now in the Middle East!

[Ifreann]

More extreme political correctness.

Of course it is, dear.

---

Sure, they say that. Probably to cover up how they're all Muslim.

I live in South Carolina, and I'm not Muslim.
Or am I?

I knew it!

---

It shouldn't of been removed. even though I am against it, people should have the freedom to fly whatever flag they want. if they want to remove the flag, then they should remove all Soviet flags, ban serbian flags, ban even the American flag because we have killed our fair share of Native Americans. also look at manifest destiny! look at what we have done against communist agendas. look at agent orange and what we done in vietnam. look at what we are doing now in the Middle East!

Did you even read the title of the thread? Do you have the slightest notion what is happening here?

[The Qeiiam Galaxy]

Then how do you explain this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Isla ... h_Carolina

I didn't say everyone in SC isn't Muslim. I just said I wasn't Muslim.

But you allowed them to create "Holy Islamville" (which is obviously an ISIS training center). That means you're working with the terrorists!

[The Grey Wolf]

The fact that the "Confederate Battle Flag" is flown with active flags is just silly. It wasn't even the flag of the CSA, but I guess this one looks less cool flapping from the back of a lifted, smog-belching, redneck mud-machine:

Remember kids, stereotyping is bad, unless it's of poor, rural, working class white people.

[Laerod]

More extreme political correctness.

Indeed, about time we get rid of political correctness like flying confederate flags.

[The Grey Wolf]

More extreme political correctness.

Indeed, about time we get rid of political correctness like flying confederate flags.

Flying the Confederate flag isn't political correctness.

[Laerod]

Indeed, about time we get rid of political correctness like flying confederate flags.

Flying the Confederate flag isn't political correctness.

It is actually. Political correctness was all about finding socially acceptable ways of being racist. As such, flying a confederate flag is arguably an ur-example of political correctness, redressing racism as "states rights".

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

About damn time.

Government offices shouldn't be freely flying a symbol of a treasonous rebellion. If individuals want to fly it, that's on them, but the state government has no business doing so.

[Edward Richtofen]

It should have been taken down and outlawed over a hundred years ago

[Slakonian]

Any flag can become a message of hate(of any kind not just racial), just claim to be the "only true patriot" by using national symbols and here you go another hate flag.

[Imperialisium]

I think they should keep the flag. The Confederate Flag is not a symbol of hatred or racism. It's like saying the swastika is in the same boat. Both are not, the swastika has been used by various cultures for thousands of years to symbolize everything but hatred and racism. Its like saying, "Oh that group there flew this symbol for X amount of years. Lets disregard all context and eliminate it completely rather than try to repair the symbolic nature of this object. So I guess all Hindu temples should eliminate their swastika symbols because some people might take offense despite the context of their offense being entirely misplaced?"

When I visited America I bought a shirt with the confederate flag as a souvenir. No one said, "You're a racist for having that or you hate black people." People didn't seem to give a rats arse. Now if I wore it and started yelling stuff like, "I'm gonna kill all the blacks on this block." Then yes something is undoubtedly wrong with that scenario.

The Confederate Flag was a symbol of the states willingness to secede and protect their own States Rights. Lets face, the Civil War was never just about Slavery, any historian worth their credentials should say the same. Sure slavery was a facet of it and a point of argument. But Lincoln and practically all politicians wouldn't fight a war over it. The only reason the North did try and make it about slavery was to make the world believe they were morally right. Not saying they were morally wrong or the Confederates were morally wrong either. There are two sides to every story. So the slavery part of it was more or less for good quality propaganda conducted by the North. I mean if it was about slavery than why wait to 1863 (an election was on the horizon and Lincoln had a distinct possibility of losing) to begin putting that slogan everywhere? Why wait when the civil war was already two years underway? Oh wait...politics. People seem to be blind to the big picture.

But taking down a flag doesn't solve any problems. Yeah! woopity due dah day you took down a flag and probably pissed off more people than before to sate the desires of this one aspect of society. While potentially disgracing the memories of people interned at the monument.

Instead of people complaining about a flag, solve the issue, forget the flag. It's just a material object of clothe and linen.

[Cymrea]

The fact that the "Confederate Battle Flag" is flown with active flags is just silly. It wasn't even the flag of the CSA, but I guess this one looks less cool flapping from the back of a lifted, smog-belching, redneck mud-machine:

Remember kids, stereotyping is bad, unless it's of poor, rural, working class white people.

Usually your posts have substance.

Regardless, I'm referring to the great many actual vehicles I have personally seen flying over-large "rebel" flags. You choose to infer the stereotype.

[Laerod]

I think they should keep the flag. The Confederate Flag is not a symbol of hatred or racism. It's like saying the swastika is in the same boat.

Absolute nonsense. A swastika on its own is not even remotely comparable to a specific flag. The Confederate Battle Flag is comparable in it's symbolism to the Nazi flag, not the geometric shape. And that specific flag is most definitely symbolic of over a decade of terror and more than half a decade of war and genocide.

The Confederate Flag was a symbol of the states willingness to secede and protect their own States Rights. Lets face, the Civil War was never just about Slavery, any historian worth their credentials should say the same.

That's a lie and I challenge you to show modern historians with credentials making the claim that slavery was not the primary reason for secession.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Hmm, should our government be endorsing an entity that engaged in rebellion in order to protect their right to own people as slaves?

I think that's the question we should be asking ourselves.

Flying a flag is not endorsing the actions or ideology of a state, particularly not at monuments to those who died in military service of that state.
Basically, the same reason flying the American flag over the Little Big Horn Memorial isn't fucked up.

[Imperialisium]

I think they should keep the flag. The Confederate Flag is not a symbol of hatred or racism. It's like saying the swastika is in the same boat.

Absolute nonsense. A swastika on its own is not even remotely comparable to a specific flag. The Confederate Battle Flag is comparable in it's symbolism to the Nazi flag, not the geometric shape. And that specific flag is most definitely symbolic of over a decade of terror and more than half a decade of war and genocide.

The Confederate Flag was a symbol of the states willingness to secede and protect their own States Rights. Lets face, the Civil War was never just about Slavery, any historian worth their credentials should say the same.

That's a lie and I challenge you to show modern historians with credentials making the claim that slavery was not the primary reason for secession.

It is comparable as the key word in my opinion was context. Removing a flag from a memorial because if an unrelated event means the flag removal is out of context and completely unnecessary. Nor is the Confederate Flag comparable to Nazism. I never mentioned anything about the geometric shape, rather the symbol itself, so that statement is invalid.

Also I never wrote a lie, you calling me a liar is a lie in it of itself, and practically anyone with Civil War knowledge would know that the conflict arose over States Rights and territorial disputes along with the interpretation of the US Constitution. If not then they are missing a key factor to the causation of the war itself which is a shame that a foreigner would know more about a nations history than that of a native. Hell even the wikipedia page says such. I'm not arguing that slavery was not a cause, but it was not the cause like many Revisionist's seem to believe. Rather it only emerged to the forefront to put the North in the morally right ground in regards to European observers. The North after all feared European involvement to assist the Confederacy.

You have a strong opinion, I respect that. But an invalid argument due to it being out of context and blatantly incorrect. I recommend further reading on the subject material to form a concise argument.

Nothing personal of course. So Cheers!

[Vaikneland]

This genuinely makes me want to fly the Confederate flag because people can be so ignorant and obnoxious

[Ifreann]

Hmm, should our government be endorsing an entity that engaged in rebellion in order to protect their right to own people as slaves?

I think that's the question we should be asking ourselves.

Flying a flag is not endorsing the actions or ideology of a state, particularly not at monuments to those who died in military service of that state.
Basically, the same reason flying the American flag over the Little Big Horn Memorial isn't fucked up.

Military service to what state?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think they should keep the flag. The Confederate Flag is not a symbol of hatred or racism. It's like saying the swastika is in the same boat.

Absolute nonsense. A swastika on its own is not even remotely comparable to a specific flag. The Confederate Battle Flag is comparable in it's symbolism to the Nazi flag, not the geometric shape. And that specific flag is most definitely symbolic of over a decade of terror and more than half a decade of war and genocide.

The Confederate Flag was a symbol of the states willingness to secede and protect their own States Rights. Lets face, the Civil War was never just about Slavery, any historian worth their credentials should say the same.

That's a lie and I challenge you to show modern historians with credentials making the claim that slavery was not the primary reason for secession.

I mean, it's not a lie since they did claim it was for states' rights.

Sadly for them, most historians agree that all these "states' rights" they declared as worthy of being protected were directly tied to preserving the slave economy, so there's not much room to discuss whether, or not, slavery was the cause of secession.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

People keep talking about a monument, which might be an appropriate context for a confederate flag. I'm confused, because the article linked in the OP just talks about the flag on the state house.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Absolute nonsense. A swastika on its own is not even remotely comparable to a specific flag. The Confederate Battle Flag is comparable in it's symbolism to the Nazi flag, not the geometric shape. And that specific flag is most definitely symbolic of over a decade of terror and more than half a decade of war and genocide.

That's a lie and I challenge you to show modern historians with credentials making the claim that slavery was not the primary reason for secession.

It is comparable as the key word in my opinion was context. Removing a flag from a memorial because if an unrelated event means the flag removal is out of context and completely unnecessary. Nor is the Confederate Flag comparable to Nazism. I never mentioned anything about the geometric shape, rather the symbol itself, so that statement is invalid.

Also I never wrote a lie, you calling me a liar is a lie in it of itself, and practically anyone with Civil War knowledge would know that the conflict arose over States Rights and territorial disputes along with the interpretation of the US Constitution. If not then they are missing a key factor to the causation of the war itself which is a shame that a foreigner would know more about a nations history than that of a native. Hell even the wikipedia page says such. I'm not arguing that slavery was not a cause, but it was not the cause like many Revisionist's seem to believe. Rather it only emerged to the forefront to put the North in the morally right ground in regards to European observers. The North after all feared European involvement to assist the Confederacy.

You have a strong opinion, I respect that. But an invalid argument due to it being out of context and blatantly incorrect. I recommend further reading on the subject material to form a concise argument.

Nothing personal of course. So Cheers!

Except for the fact 4 states seceded and cited, as a main cause if not a major cause slaveowners' grievances.

[Ifreann]

Absolute nonsense. A swastika on its own is not even remotely comparable to a specific flag. The Confederate Battle Flag is comparable in it's symbolism to the Nazi flag, not the geometric shape. And that specific flag is most definitely symbolic of over a decade of terror and more than half a decade of war and genocide.

That's a lie and I challenge you to show modern historians with credentials making the claim that slavery was not the primary reason for secession.

I mean, it's not a lie since they did claim it was for states' rights.

Sadly for them, most historians agree that all these "states' rights" they declared as worthy of being protected were directly tied to preserving the slave economy, so there's not much room to discuss whether, or not, slavery was the cause of secession.

No, they claimed it was for slavery. I believe in the Cornerstone speech has been mentioned in this thread already.

[The Qeiiam Galaxy]

Also I never wrote a lie, you calling me a liar is a lie in it of itself, and practically anyone with Civil War knowledge would know that the conflict arose over States Rights and territorial disputes along with the interpretation of the US Constitution. If not then they are missing a key factor to the causation of the war itself which is a shame that a foreigner would know more about a nations history than that of a native. Hell even the wikipedia page says such. I'm not arguing that slavery was not a cause, but it was not the cause like many Revisionist's seem to believe. Rather it only emerged to the forefront to put the North in the morally right ground in regards to European observers. The North after all feared European involvement to assist the Confederacy.

*sigh* Not this shit again.

The Cornerstone Speech by the Confederate Vice-President, with the following passages being the most relevant:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... 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 idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."


Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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 moral condition.


. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

Full text of speech: http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/a ... phens.html

Mississippi's Articles Of Secession:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp


Georgia's Articles Of Secession:

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp


South Carolina's Articles Of Secession:

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

It should be noted that in this particular document, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of individual states, stating their grievances against certain northern states for passing laws that essentially nullified the Fugitive Slave Act within their own borders.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp


Texas Articles Of Secession:

"The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof. The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union. Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

And also...

"…In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

And...

"…We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp


"But States' Rights!"

The Confederate Constitution does give states certain rights not granted in the U.S. Constitution. However, concerning the question of slavery, Article 9, Section 1, Clause 4 states the following:

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

In other words, states had NO right to ban slavery.

"But what about The Morrill Tariff?"

Yes, that was opposed by Southern states, and for understandable reasons. However, seven states seceded before the bill was passed, including Virginia, whose Senator (Robert M.T. Hunter) was in charge of the Finance Committee. If they had stayed in the Union, the bill would likely have been tabled. As it was, however, their withdrawal led to a Republican majority in the Senate, and the passage of the bill. As the secession preceded the passage of the bill, this is a blatant reversal of cause and effect.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Ta ... ate_action

"Why did so many black people fight for the South, then?"

They didn't. Or, rather, not many did, even when promised their freedom in exchange. The exact numbers are in dispute, but any accounts not based upon hearsay don't indicate them serving in great numbers.

http://militaryhistorynow.com/2012/06/2 ... nfederacy/

"So why did the Confederate Government allow blacks to enlist in exchange for their freedom?"

They didn't. There was no promise of freedom in the bill passed that allowed them to enlist as combat troops. 

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... k-soldiers

"Why did the Confederate government promise England in the last days of the war that in exchange for recognition, they would abolish slavery?"

For all they knew, they were on the verge of being hanged for treason, and were willing to give up everything they'd fought for in order to save their own hides.

DISCLAIMER: This list was not made by me.

[Laerod]

Absolute nonsense. A swastika on its own is not even remotely comparable to a specific flag. The Confederate Battle Flag is comparable in it's symbolism to the Nazi flag, not the geometric shape. And that specific flag is most definitely symbolic of over a decade of terror and more than half a decade of war and genocide.

That's a lie and I challenge you to show modern historians with credentials making the claim that slavery was not the primary reason for secession.

It is comparable as the key word in my opinion was context. Removing a flag from a memorial because if an unrelated event means the flag removal is out of context and completely unnecessary. Nor is the Confederate Flag comparable to Nazism. I never mentioned anything about the geometric shape, rather the symbol itself, so that statement is invalid.

Nonsequitur much? You compared a Confederate flag to a swastika, specifically the symbol without context. That's a bullshit comparison. The rest of your statement has nothing to do with what I said and thus has been summarily rejected.

Also I never wrote a lie, you calling me a liar is a lie in it of itself,

I pointed the lie out to you and never called you anything. That's two lies of yours right there. To get back to the original point: You claimed that historians with credentials don't see slavery as the main or "only" cause. Prove that your statement was not a lie and cite those historians.

and practically anyone with Civil War knowledge would know that the conflict arose over States Rights and territorial disputes along with the interpretation of the US Constitution.

As someone that's read the actual declarations for the causes of secession, I know that the conflict arose over slavery and most definitely not about the political correct euphemism "states' rights". Your assertion is disproven.

If not then they are missing a key factor to the causation of the war itself which is a shame that a foreigner would know more about a nations history than that of a native.

I'm technically not a native and you've shown that you do not know more about the Civil War than I do.

Hell even the wikipedia page says such. I'm not arguing that slavery was not a cause, but it was not the cause like many Revisionist's seem to believe. Rather it only emerged to the forefront to put the North in the morally right ground in regards to European observers. The North after all feared European involvement to assist the Confederacy.

You have a strong opinion, I respect that. But an invalid argument due to it being out of context and blatantly incorrect. I recommend further reading on the subject material to form a concise argument.

Nothing personal of course. So Cheers! :D

Physician cure thyself and do more than just skim the wiki article. You clearly have neither read it nor the appropriate historical documents in depth.

[Geilinor]

I mean, it's not a lie since they did claim it was for states' rights.

Sadly for them, most historians agree that all these "states' rights" they declared as worthy of being protected were directly tied to preserving the slave economy, so there's not much room to discuss whether, or not, slavery was the cause of secession.

No, they claimed it was for slavery. I believe in the Cornerstone speech has been mentioned in this thread already.

They claimed it was for the state right to have slavery. Both of you are correct.

[The Tricolour]

Anyone should fly whatever flag they want to fly, don't take their rights away. 1st amendment people. Yeah it's bad, but you realize people actually fly the soviet flag?

Yes, First Amendment. But, it's flying at a US Memorial. And it represents hate.

I don't think the flag represents hate. Just my opinion. Also, First Amendment.