Confederate Emblems to be Removed Nationwide.

[Nordengrund]

You know... we do have state flags...

But those don't adequately represent how proud one is that one's state tried to establish a slave empire.

Slavery was practiced in states like Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri and they all remained loyal to the Union.

[Des-Bal]

Slavery was practiced in states like Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri and they all remained loyal to the Union.

Oh I guess that means the confederacy wasn't specifically created to protect slavery. That totally means that.

[Dyakovo]

But those don't adequately represent how proud one is that one's state tried to establish a slave empire.

Slavery was practiced in states like Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri and they all remained loyal to the Union.

That's nice. Has nothing to do with what Iffy said though...

[Divitaen]

But those don't adequately represent how proud one is that one's state tried to establish a slave empire.

Slavery was practiced in states like Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri and they all remained loyal to the Union.

So what? Lincoln allowed border states to practise slavery to win their temporary support, but the ultimate goal was always still abolition. The fact is that the USA was not established to keep and protect the institution of slavery. The Confederacy's sole historical basis and claim to existence stems from the need to protect and preserve slavery as a racist institution. That makes the construct of the Confederacy a racist, white supremacist construct, and any symbol of that construct is a symbol of slavery and everything it stands for.

[Wallenburg]

But those don't adequately represent how proud one is that one's state tried to establish a slave empire.

Slavery was practiced in states like Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri and they all remained loyal to the Union.

Slavery was dying already in those states.

[Republic of Coldwater]

They should rename Fort Bragg and Fort Hood, just because Braxton Bragg was a complete retard, and Hood for allowing Lincoln to be re-elected in Atlanta, and launching that absolutely retarded attack in Franklin.

Otherwise, this is just a memory of Confederate Generals, many of which fought because of their allegiance to their state, and many of which were ingenious generals that undertook some of the most audacious and tactically impressive of moves (for example Lee in the Northern Virginia and Chancellorsville Campaign), moves that are still revered, and studied today.

Fort Bin Laden, anyone?

Did the CSA murder 3000 people and cause billions of dollars in property damage? Are they immoral terrorists who utilize religion as an excuse to macerate, to kill innocents? To compare Robert E. Lee, a man who merely loathed the idea of a country invading itself, and fought out of loyalty for his native state to a terrible man who falsely utilizes religion to murder countless innocents is not only offensive, it is ludicrous.

[Kelinfort]

Did the CSA murder 3000 people and cause billions of dollars in property damage? Are they immoral terrorists who utilize religion as an excuse to macerate, to kill innocents? To compare Robert E. Lee, a man who merely loathed the idea of a country invading itself, and fought out of loyalty for his native state to a terrible man who falsely utilizes religion to murder countless innocents is not only offensive, it is ludicrous.

Yeah

Also, the amount of Federal property deface, stolen, and damaged probably reaches into the billions in today's money.

[Divitaen]

Did the CSA murder 3000 people and cause billions of dollars in property damage? Are they immoral terrorists who utilize religion as an excuse to macerate, to kill innocents? To compare Robert E. Lee, a man who merely loathed the idea of a country invading itself, and fought out of loyalty for his native state to a terrible man who falsely utilizes religion to murder countless innocents is not only offensive, it is ludicrous.

He still fought to defend slavery though. That is pretty despicable, even if not at the same level as Bin Laden.

[Ifreann]

Did the CSA murder 3000 people and cause billions of dollars in property damage?

I expect you would be better positioned than me to reckon the numbers they murdered and dollars of property damage they caused. I'd expect the former to be well over 3,000.

Are they immoral terrorists who utilize religion as an excuse to macerate, to kill innocents?

Maybe not terrorists.

And are you sure "macerate" is the word you want to use there?

To compare Robert E. Lee, a man who merely loathed the idea of a country invading itself, and fought out of loyalty for his native state to a terrible man who falsely utilizes religion to murder countless innocents is not only offensive, it is ludicrous.

Certainly there are differences between them, but if the US is going to honour enemy generals by naming bases after them, Bin Laden is certainly a prominent enemy general from the modern era. If he's out then I'm sure there are several Iraqi and Taliban generals that could be considered, or we could go further back and name some bases after Vietnamese generals, maybe some Soviets or Nazis, hell, maybe go all the way back to your revolution and name a base or two after British generals or admirals.

[Kelinfort]

Did the CSA murder 3000 people and cause billions of dollars in property damage?

I expect you would be better positioned than me to reckon the numbers they murdered and dollars of property damage they caused. I'd expect the former to be well over 3,000.

Are they immoral terrorists who utilize religion as an excuse to macerate, to kill innocents?

Maybe not terrorists.

And are you sure "macerate" is the word you want to use there?

To compare Robert E. Lee, a man who merely loathed the idea of a country invading itself, and fought out of loyalty for his native state to a terrible man who falsely utilizes religion to murder countless innocents is not only offensive, it is ludicrous.

Certainly there are differences between them, but if the US is going to honour enemy generals by naming bases after them, Bin Laden is certainly a prominent enemy general from the modern era. If he's out then I'm sure there are several Iraqi and Taliban generals that could be considered, or we could go further back and name some bases after Vietnamese generals, maybe some Soviets or Nazis, hell, maybe go all the way back to your revolution and name a base or two after British generals or admirals.

Fort Ho Chi Minh or Fort Giap is a better analogy.

[Heartlost]

A sad day for both reason and freedom, no one ever learns.

[Ifreann]

A sad day for both reason and freedom, no one ever learns.

Wanna expand upon that?

[Divitaen]

A sad day for both reason and freedom, no one ever learns.

Wanna expand upon that?

Don't bother. We'll get a lecture on states' rights and "Southern heritage". We've all heard it a million times.

[Gauthier]

I expect you would be better positioned than me to reckon the numbers they murdered and dollars of property damage they caused. I'd expect the former to be well over 3,000.

Maybe not terrorists.

And are you sure "macerate" is the word you want to use there?

Certainly there are differences between them, but if the US is going to honour enemy generals by naming bases after them, Bin Laden is certainly a prominent enemy general from the modern era. If he's out then I'm sure there are several Iraqi and Taliban generals that could be considered, or we could go further back and name some bases after Vietnamese generals, maybe some Soviets or Nazis, hell, maybe go all the way back to your revolution and name a base or two after British generals or admirals.

Fort Ho Chi Minh or Fort Giap is a better analogy.

Fort Arnold. *nod*

[Ifreann]

Wanna expand upon that?

Don't bother. We'll get a lecture on states' rights and "Southern heritage". We've all heard it a million times.

If that put me off I'd have stopped posting years ago.

[Nordengrund]

A sad day for both reason and freedom, no one ever learns.

This is NSG. No one uses reason here.

[Gauthier]

A sad day for both reason and freedom, no one ever learns.

>Produly waving a flag of treason and slavery is Reason and Freedom
>lulz

[Imperial States America]

Sure its easy to rename a bridge or school or remove a flag from state grounds.

But what I find funny about this whole thing is that everyone suddenly gives a damn about what a military base is named after if you wanting to change Fort Bragg and Fort Hood you might as well change the name of Washington State the Washington Monument or anything to do with George Washington or even Thomas Jefferson you know why because both owned slaves but heaven forbid we change that because they founded our nation and fought for freedom. As you may know I'm being an asshole on purpose

When Washington was twelve years old, he inherited ten slaves; by the time of his death, 316 slaves lived at Mount Vernon, including 123 owned by Washington, 40 leased from a neighbor, and an additional 153 "dower slaves."

Throughout his lifetime Jefferson owned hundreds of African-American slaves acquired by inheritance, marriage, births of slaves, and trade.[2][3][4] Starting in 1767 at the age of twenty-one, Jefferson inherited 5,000 acres of land and fifty-two slaves by his father's will. In 1768 Jefferson began construction of his Monticello plantation. Through his marriage to Martha Wayles in 1772 and his father-in-law John Wayles inheritance in 1773 Jefferson inherited two plantations and 135 slaves. By 1776 Jefferson was one of the largest planters in Virginia. However, the value of his property (land and slaves) was increasingly offset by his growing debts, which made it very difficult to free his slaves and thereby lose them as assets.[5]

[Latznavia]

Probably gonna get hate for this, but here we go.

This is the same excuse as the Swastika. It was once a symbol of unity and labour and peace used by the wrong people and now everyone associates it with that.

The Southern Stars and Bars is a memorial to our nation's history, a time when ideologies were clashing. While the northern states wanted freedom and unity, the south wanted individualism and states rights. The slavery thing was a big issue, but at the time of the Civil War, both the North and South had slaves.

Certain groups like the KKK have used the southern symbolism as a means to express themselves fully as a white supremacists group, but that was not the South's main goal. As my history class told me, Slavery lit the powder keg, but the Battle was far more than that and it makes me sad that the nation is removing an important aspect of our history because of a recent incident.

That's my two cents. I am against slavery but to hide a part of history is wrong. That's like Germany hiding Nazism and the holocaust.

[Divitaen]

Probably gonna get hate for this, but here we go.

This is the same excuse as the Swastika. It was once a symbol of unity and labour and peace used by the wrong people and now everyone associates it with that.

The Southern Stars and Bars is a memorial to our nation's history, a time when ideologies were clashing. While the northern states wanted freedom and unity, the south wanted individualism and states rights. The slavery thing was a big issue, but at the time of the Civil War, both the North and South had slaves.

Certain groups like the KKK have used the southern symbolism as a means to express themselves fully as a white supremacists group, but that was not the South's main goal. As my history class told me, Slavery lit the powder keg, but the Battle was far more than that and it makes me sad that the nation is removing an important aspect of our history because of a recent incident.

That's my two cents. I am against slavery but to hide a part of history is wrong. That's like Germany hiding Nazism and the holocaust.

So by your logic, in order to not hide a part of history, Germany should fly the Nazi flag in Berlin over Parliament?

Also, honestly to portray the Confederacy as fighting for individualism is kind of hilarious. Ideologies were clashing, yes. The ideology of abolition vs. slavery. You keep talking about states' rights, but states' rights don't exist in a vacuum. The right that the Confederate states wanted so badly was, specifically, the right to keep and own slaves. That's the reason for the Confederacy's existence in the first place.

[Dyakovo]

A sad day for both reason and freedom, no one ever learns.

This is NSG. No one uses reason here.

Not everyone here is a neo-confederate...

[Divitaen]

This is NSG. No one uses reason here.

Not everyone here is a neo-confederate...

Yeah, but way too many people are.

[Dyakovo]

Sure its easy to rename a bridge or school or remove a flag from state grounds.

But what I find funny about this whole thing is that everyone suddenly gives a damn about what a military base is named after if you wanting to change Fort Bragg and Fort Hood you might as well change the name of Washington State the Washington Monument or anything to do with George Washington or even Thomas Jefferson you know why because both owned slaves but heaven forbid we change that because they founded our nation and fought for freedom. As you may know I'm being an asshole on purpose

When Washington was twelve years old, he inherited ten slaves; by the time of his death, 316 slaves lived at Mount Vernon, including 123 owned by Washington, 40 leased from a neighbor, and an additional 153 "dower slaves."

Throughout his lifetime Jefferson owned hundreds of African-American slaves acquired by inheritance, marriage, births of slaves, and trade.[2][3][4] Starting in 1767 at the age of twenty-one, Jefferson inherited 5,000 acres of land and fifty-two slaves by his father's will. In 1768 Jefferson began construction of his Monticello plantation. Through his marriage to Martha Wayles in 1772 and his father-in-law John Wayles inheritance in 1773 Jefferson inherited two plantations and 135 slaves. By 1776 Jefferson was one of the largest planters in Virginia. However, the value of his property (land and slaves) was increasingly offset by his growing debts, which made it very difficult to free his slaves and thereby lose them as assets.[5]

1: The fact that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves is not a shocking revelation. We already knew.
2: Washington and Jefferson did not rebel against their rightful government for the purpose of continuing the institution of racially based slavery, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

[White Chrobatia]

Not everyone here is a neo-confederate...

Yeah, but way too many people are.

More people than you'd hope, but less people than you'd think.

[Ifreann]

Sure its easy to rename a bridge or school or remove a flag from state grounds.

But what I find funny about this whole thing is that everyone suddenly gives a damn about what a military base is named after if you wanting to change Fort Bragg and Fort Hood you might as well change the name of Washington State the Washington Monument or anything to do with George Washington or even Thomas Jefferson you know why because both owned slaves but heaven forbid we change that because they founded our nation and fought for freedom. As you may know I'm being an asshole on purpose

When Washington was twelve years old, he inherited ten slaves; by the time of his death, 316 slaves lived at Mount Vernon, including 123 owned by Washington, 40 leased from a neighbor, and an additional 153 "dower slaves."

Throughout his lifetime Jefferson owned hundreds of African-American slaves acquired by inheritance, marriage, births of slaves, and trade.[2][3][4] Starting in 1767 at the age of twenty-one, Jefferson inherited 5,000 acres of land and fifty-two slaves by his father's will. In 1768 Jefferson began construction of his Monticello plantation. Through his marriage to Martha Wayles in 1772 and his father-in-law John Wayles inheritance in 1773 Jefferson inherited two plantations and 135 slaves. By 1776 Jefferson was one of the largest planters in Virginia. However, the value of his property (land and slaves) was increasingly offset by his growing debts, which made it very difficult to free his slaves and thereby lose them as assets.[5]

The difference is that Confederate generals were enemies of the US and its armed forces. Whatever about their qualities as either people or military leaders, they fought against the army and nation that today honours them by naming shit after them. That's pretty weird.

---

Probably gonna get hate for this, but here we go.

This is the same excuse as the Swastika. It was once a symbol of unity and labour and peace used by the wrong people and now everyone associates it with that.

The Southern Stars and Bars is a memorial to our nation's history, a time when ideologies were clashing. While the northern states wanted freedom and unity, the south wanted individualism and states rights. The slavery thing was a big issue, but at the time of the Civil War, both the North and South had slaves.

Certain groups like the KKK have used the southern symbolism as a means to express themselves fully as a white supremacists group, but that was not the South's main goal. As my history class told me, Slavery lit the powder keg, but the Battle was far more than that and it makes me sad that the nation is removing an important aspect of our history because of a recent incident.

That's my two cents. I am against slavery but to hide a part of history is wrong. That's like Germany hiding Nazism and the holocaust.

I invite you to research just how many WWII memorials in Germany fly Nazi flags over them. I can't claim to actually know the number myself, but I would bet that it is "zero". I'm sure it hangs in museums and is pictured in history books, but I doubt very much that it flies over any memorials to those who died either in the war or the Holocaust.