BF2S Forums Should the Confederate flag be banned?

topal63 wrote:

redneckgrl30 wrote:

I'm not a racist just proud of my heritage

And what exactly is that heritage?

Like for me I don't wave/display/own the original Colonial Flag with 13-stars. I am Irish/German/Slovenian, I am most certainly not a Bostonian by heritage.

Southern Heritage. There is plenty there that does not involve racism at all.

You are wright it shouldn't tax payers pay to keep it flying an it shouldn't be put on a person like that but to have it flying outside your home or your private property i think is a big yes

Having lived in every region of the US......except Alaska, I need someone to explain what this southern pride is exactly.  bear in mind I did live in Columbia, South Carolina and still have no idea what the pride is for.

It's a SOUTHERN THING yall wouldn't understand

cpt.fass1 wrote:

The Rebel flag doesn't just scream out I want slaves like everyone is taught. There where alot of other and more valid reasons for the Civil War in the United States. The main reason taught now is the Slavery, but pardon the pun it wasn't "just that black and white". IMO alot of Southern display that flag as a sign to the North that even though they lost, they are still the back bone of America.

But on an other note Someone was wearing a Confederate flag at a show around here two weeks ago and got beat to death.. No one should ever put that much thought into something like that.

I was always taught that it was because the southern states wanted to secede from the union.  One of the main, but not only, reason was that of slavery.

Okay. So someone wearing the Confederate flag is just like a Leb wearing the Aussie flag in Cronulla?

I'm not really that good with American History, but if people feel proud to have the Confederate flag, so be it.
I think people in the "South" see it as a symbol of their heritage and pride in their ancestors who held out during years of war under terrible odds and sacrifice.
And others really just see it as a symbol of the institution of slavery.

If they ban the flag, aren't they banning the remembrance of fallen Confederate soldiers?

What the Conferderate Flag (or the swastika, or the peace sign, etc.) stands for? HISTORY.  good,bad,indifferent, but history all the same.

Kmarion wrote:

The_Shipbuilder is right, a symbol does conjure up different feelings in different people. I also do not believe someone has the right to not be offended.

Interesting, provocative comment at the very end of that video... "What universities are saying with these codes and special protections... is that you are too weak to live with freedom, you are too weak to live with the first amendment. When someone tells you [this], they have turned you into a child."

To me, this guy is going overboard. The whole spirit of the bill of rights and the amendments, for example, is to protect the rights of an unpopular minority from the will of the majority. Is that turning someone into a child? I don't think so. But at the same time, I can understand. Why should certain minority groups be named specifically? If Tommy is a bully, we dno't tell him to stop beating up on poor little Eugene - we tell him that he shouldn't be a bully, period.

If someone else's actions causes a significant hindrance to one's education - whether it's physical bullying or repeated, direct verbal torment - any responsible place of learning should take action.

dubbs wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

dubbs wrote:

So it shows that you truely do not know anything that happened during the Civil War.  First the war was not about slavery.  It was about state rights.  Second, the war only had anything to do with slavery near the end, this was to get support for the war.

Now with that said, what if that person is honoring the people who died to defend that flag?  Does that mean that we should not respect anyone at all?  What do you do at Civil War reenactments?  Do the "Southerns" just go out without a flag?  Or should they just carry a white one?  What do we do with states that have the Confederate flag in them, like Mississippi?  Should they have to change their flag? 

Even though it is a part of US history that we all wish we could forget, we have to live with it.  By showing the flag we remind people of the mistakes that we had in the past, and hopefully we remember them, and not repeat them in the future.

What were the states wanting the rights for? You're correct in that the actual fighting started because Lincoln and the South disputed over whether a state could secede, but most of the causes leading up to the war were associated with slavery. The South felt that slavery was threatened because Lincoln's election ended the South's political power. It didn't help that he wanted to curtail the expansion of slavery, and most Southerners felt that eventually the Republicans would attack slavery directly. You're correct that we bombed Ft. Sumter because we thought we had the right to secede, not because we immediately felt the threat of emancipation. It's also true that the abolishment of slavery didn't become the focus until later. However, it's pretty dishonest of you to take the spark igniting the conflict and expand it to be the cause of the entire war. The differences over slavery were the major reason why secession occurred. The South would not have seceded if it thought that it could protect slavery by political means.

It was not because of Slavery.  There is a reason that the Southern states called themselves the Confederate States of America.  That reason was that they thought the Federal Goverenment was getting to strong, and that the power of the republic should be held by the states.  They thought the Constitiution gave the Federal Goverenment to much power and the states very little power.  That is why the Confederates based their government off the Articles of Confederation.  This give more power to the states, instead of the centeral government.  Slavery was only added as the cause toward the end of the war when the North was losing.  Lincoln needed another cause in order to get support from the North, and in order to keep other nations out of the war.  There was more reason for Lincoln to keep the South, because of the grains, and food it provided to the USA then slavery.  That was one of the reasons the North did not want the South to leave the Union in the first place.  Like I stated, slavery was an issue but it came late in the war.  People want to make it a war about slavery just to make it seem worth a war to fight for, and not a useless loss of lives.  As someone stated, Lincoln did not free the slaves, as everyone thinks, he just freed them in the states that rebeled.  If the war had been about slavery he would have had to free them all.

As I wrote this, I came to ask myself, if Lincoln did not die in office, was would we have said the war was about?

You did the exact thing that I mentioned. You talk about "well, the states wanted more power than the federal government," and this is true, but you continually dance around exactly what they wanted more power over. The predominant political issues throughout the early 19th century were slaves and tariffs. The South was directly threatened by its loss of Congressional power due to the admission of free states. Once Lincoln, who was at the least unfriendly to slavery, was elected, the South knew its slave days were over. The South already knew that the Republicans wanted to stop slavery from going into the territories, and they knew it'd only be a matter of time before they attacked slavery in the South. Why do you think the states seceded right after Lincoln's election? They knew that with Lincoln's election, the South had lost its political power. Now certainly this extended to other issues like tariffs, but slavery was undeniably one of the major reasons why the South seceded.

You may be right in that the war wasn't fought to end slavery at the onset, but the slavery issue was one of (if not the) dividing factors leading up to the Civil War.

no becuace the genral lee looks good with the flag.

Its a flag that my great great great great grandfathers fought under (my moms family is from Louisiana and Texas) during the Civil War.

Its a part of our American history, therefore NEVER should be banned! Granted the flag is offensive to some people, its also very important to others. . . .

I am neutral to the flag personally. I know that it symbolizes racism (to some), but in my case as a history buff, it symbolizes the flag of the Confederacy nothing more. . .

topal63 wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

http://i14.tinypic.com/29gcqrd.jpg

Its a flag that my great great great great grandfathers fought under (my moms family is from Louisiana and Texas) during the Civil War.

Its a part of our American history, therefore NEVER should be banned! Granted the flag is offensive to some people, its also very important to others. . . .

I am neutral to the flag personally. I know that it symbolizes racism (to some), but in my case as a history buff, it symbolizes the flag of the Confederacy nothing more. . .

I don't care either way - doesn't bother me. "Nigga" is just a word to me as well, it is even used as term of personal endearment. Symbols come and go - they change meaning over time - sometimes even acquire the opposite meaning the originally had.

Can a school dress-code be enforced, excepting out the wearing of this symbol of a pair of 16 y.o. supple DD's? Sure... seems reasonable to me. Nothing unreasonable about either a public or private school's dress-code. After school wear what you want. Should it be displayed on a Public Building in equality with the American Flag or a State Flag - NO; a ban seems more than appropriate. Want to fly it outside your home - feel free.

I think the ban is appropriate when it involves the public - we are MOST certainly not a Confederate.

What do you mean by public? Should we make it illegal for museums or memorials dealing with the Confederacy to fly the flag? What about Mississippi and South Carolina? Mississippi has it in its state flag, and SC puts the flag outside its capitol. If the people don't vote it down, then I don't see any reason for the federal government to step it.

UGADawgs wrote:

(Edited for Length.)
You did the exact thing that I mentioned. You talk about "well, the states wanted more power than the federal government," and this is true, but you continually dance around exactly what they wanted more power over. The predominant political issues throughout the early 19th century were slaves and tariffs. The South was directly threatened by its loss of Congressional power due to the admission of free states. Once Lincoln, who was at the least unfriendly to slavery, was elected, the South knew its slave days were over. The South already knew that the Republicans wanted to stop slavery from going into the territories, and they knew it'd only be a matter of time before they attacked slavery in the South. Why do you think the states seceded right after Lincoln's election? They knew that with Lincoln's election, the South had lost its political power. Now certainly this extended to other issues like tariffs, but slavery was undeniably one of the major reasons why the South seceded.

You may be right in that the war wasn't fought to end slavery at the onset, but the slavery issue was one of (if not the) dividing factors leading up to the Civil War.

So if what you are saying is true, then why did the first state succeed before Lincoln was elected?  South Carolina succeeded in 1860,

Wikipedia's CSA article wrote:

Seven states seceded by February 1861:

South Carolina (December 20, 1860),
Mississippi (January 9, 1861),
Florida (January 10, 1861),
Alabama (January 11, 1861),
Georgia (January 19, 1861),
Louisiana (January 26, 1861),
Texas (February 1, 1861).
After Lincoln called for troops, four more states seceded:

Virginia (April 17, 1861);
Arkansas (May 6, 1861),
Tennessee (May 7, 1861).
North Carolina (May 20, 1861)

Wikipedia's Lincoln article wrote:

The seven Confederate states seceded before Lincoln took office

As you see there were seven states that suceeded before Lincoln took office in March of 1861.  Also, South Carolina suceeded before the elections even took place, and only a month after Lincoln stated that he would again run for president.  Also the later of the four listed about, only suceeded when Lincoln stated that he was going to send troops to attack the rebellion in the South.  This had nothing to do with slavery, at all.  The Upper South, as they are called, refused to send troops there.  This was after Lincoln stated that he would not send troops into the states that suceeded during his inaugural address (shown below). 

Abe Lincoln wrote:

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you.... You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it."

They suceeded, once again because of states rights.  They thought that there should not be a war, and refused to send troops to combat the Southern states that suceeded. 

Once all of the states suceeded there were only for Union forts that remained in the South, and the South attacked them to take them over, thus the Civil War started. 

Slavery may have been on of the minor reasons that lead to the war, but not the true cause for the war as others have stated.  I would say, as you stated, tariffs were more of an issue then slavery.  The South felt that they were being over taxed, just to help the North, and that the North was doing nothing to assist them.  The issue about states joining Union having the right to choose to be slavery or anti-slavery, was an issue that lead to the war also.  This was because the North was trying to force states to choose, not allowing them.  Thus, leads to everyone thinking the issue was about slavery. 


On a different note:  The person who stated that Lincoln owned slaves, needs to really look at history a little more in depth.  Lincoln's family was poor when he was growing up, thus not being able to have the money to own slaves.  He family had to move from Kentucky to Indiana due to them not able so support themselves in Kentucky.  He also was against owning slaves, which is why he help create the Republican Party.  This fact itself shows that you are incorrect in you assumption.