Why is there so much hatred towards the Confederate battle flag?

Posted By: Walt
Date: March 7, 2011   05:30:50 PM

Could it have something to do with the fact that a few of the people who fly that flag are racial bigots spreading hatred of their own? Nah, that couldn't be it!

:rolleyes:

Report violation

Posted By: FLThunderbird
Date: March 7, 2011   08:38:54 PM

If that's the logic behind the hatred spewed toward the South and Confederate symbols then it must also be shared by the United States and the Stars and Stripes. After all, slavery existed under the stars and stripes, under that flag, the slave trade was allowed, racism was rampant and native Americans were slaughtered, ethnically cleansed and had their land stolen. It seems beyond hypocritical to try to pin racism or the evils of slavery exclusively on the Southern states.

Report violation

Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: March 7, 2011   09:15:52 PM

Hi Mark,
Good question. Hate and fear motivate individuals to political predictability. Symbols are used because they can encompass so much towards obliterating the individuals and lumping them all together under their common banner. Many Libertarians paint Republicans as if the GOP obliterates the individuals who use that particular tool. They use the word Republican as a brand name rather than as a description of a political party. Brand labels are another form of symbolism used to create mass predictability. The Confederate flag has been hated by the victors, the North, the establishment, the Feds, the status quo regardless of their political affiliations. The political correctness fungus that rotted a large segment of US voter's minds created the most recent wave of hatred for the Confederate battle flag. Generations past hated it for different reasons...whatever reasons were most prominently promoted by the political strategists of the day. That flag is not hated for anything it is or anything it represents, it is hated because it is a powerful symbol that promotes political predictability.

Winning elections is all about knowing the size and motivations of large predictable masses so the real money and 'touch' can be focused on that dense herd at the center. This is why all politicians move to the center eventually. All the predictables are in place so all they have to worry about is getting a fatter slice of the center than the other guy does.

That's the way I see it.
-Jahfre Fire Eater

Report violation

Posted By: mgpthoc
Date: March 8, 2011   04:57:28 AM

1) it's not the "Stars and bars" that refers to Confederate First National flag.
2) the REAL reason there is so much hatred is the NAACP is promoting and tyeaching hatred against Southern symbol of the Battle Flag with their 1991 "resolution" against it. They are the true promoters of hatred and revisionist of Confederate history.

Report violation

Posted By: FilmCriticOne
Date: March 8, 2011   09:12:37 AM

The issue I have with your article is basic history - and your claim about PC. I am going to give you some politically incorrect facts, lets see if you can handle them.

You are right. The CW was not about slavery --it was the SPREAD of slavery. The insane, violent, illegal, unconstitutional efforts to SPREAD slavery that caused the Civil War. Guess who said so? THE SOUTH. Southern leaders, Southern headlines, Southern speeches, Southern Ultimatums, Southern history, Southern books. Things the South shouted from the rooftops then, you don't dare even whisper now. Do you know about your OWN Southern Ultimatums?

Do you know what the FIRST thing your leaders did at Montgomery, after seceding? According to Southern headlines, bragging about it, your leaders issued the Southern Ultimatums. You would think that your OWN Southern Ultimatums issued by your own leaders, and printed in your own newspapers, would somehow get mentioned in your "history" books. You would be wrong.

These Ultimatums were not just the bravado of Southern leaders "feeling their oats". These were the basic demands of the South for 40 years.

ALl five Ultimatum were about the SPREAD of slavery. The first Ultimatum (promise of war) was that Kansas accept and respect slavery. Kansas of course, had just rejected slavery 98% to 2% in their own election. Plus, they had fought 4 year war against the thugs sent to spread slavery down the throats of people in Kansas. By 1861, no place on earth was more anti-slavery than Kansas. And everyone knew it.

But the FIRST Ultimatum -- promise of war -- was that Kansas "accept and respect" slavery.

And guess who had to spread it there? The North! US congress and the legislature MUST spread slavery there, and the people must "respect it".

Gone- -completely gone -- was any pretense of "states rights". Newspapers in the South and North reported the Ultimatums. New York newspapers suggested Lincoln should obey them, to avoid war. It wasn't worth a war to stop the spread of slavery out west. Let them have what they want.

The goofy South had actually gone too far. Gotten too full of themselves. Usually, when you are trying to intimidate, you give an offer they can't refuse. Here, the South was giving Ultimatums Lincoln could not possibly accept.

Lincoln could not send US troops out to Kansas to force slavery down their throats -- and make them "respect it" if he wanted to. The demands were goofy. It's as if Hitler gave England an Ultimatum to invade Poland, and round up the Jews, for the amusement of Germany. That is exactly how goofy this Ultimatum was. It shows the insane hubris of Southern leaders. The reason they don't teach this to you, is that its SO goofy, there is no way to finesse it. It's naked goofy aggression.

And when Lincoln would not obey these ultimatums, the South attacked.

The other Ultimatums were specific -- states had NO RIGHTS to decide issues themselves about race or civil rights, within their own borders! The fig leaf bs excuse of states rights was gone. Kansas had changed everything. Slavery had to be forced into Kansas, and the North states could not even have their OWN laws about what happened within their OWN borders! Before, of course, slave owners were saying it was the RIGHT of white people to have slaves, and states to decide. Here, just the opposite - states had no rights to decide AGAINST slavery. The tough people of Kansas has forced the South to reveal what it was all about -- the spread of slavery, against the will of WHITE people too.

Gee -- I wonder why they didn't teach you boys about your own Ultimatums?



Guess what the headlines in Southern newspapers were, when they announced your own Ultimatums? "THE TRUE ISSUE". You can't make this stuff up. Your OWN Ultimatums, and your OWN headlines shouted it from the roof tops -- the SPREAD of slavery was the true issue.

And it wasn't just these Ultimatums. These were all well known at the time, of course, but there was much much more. Southern newspapers a full of irate demands to SPREAD slavery. Even official proclamations, such as by the Southern governor who said "just stopping the spread of slavery is like burning us to death slowly". Toombs shouted to cheering crowds "EXPAND OR PERISH". Davis said slavery was "A divine gift of God" and VP Stephens said the CSA would just be the FIRST nation to do slavery right - that this "great moral truth" would be spread all over the white world, to enslave the black race.

Jeff Davis himself, writing in the cool reflection years later, said what the cause of the Civil War was. He said what the "intolerable grievance" was - hey, you should know this. What did your OWN president write in his OWN book about the "intolerable grievance" that made secession mandatory? Do you know? Do you have a clue? You didn't know about your own Ultimatums, so I doubt you know about Davis explanation of the "intolerable grievance".

The intolerable grievance -- according to DAVIS HIMSELF -- was that people in the North SAID negative things about Dred Scott decision. Did you know that? That's right - go read his books. That's what the man said. He meant Lincoln, of course. In 1856 Lincoln had spoken out against the Dred Scott decision. This decision, of course, said that blacks were "so inferior" that no white man could POSSIBLY think blacks had any rights from God. (Bet you didn't know that either - go read the decision) Blacks were SO inferior, white men could not POSSIBLY think they had any natural or God given rights! NONE. It was not POSSIBLE to even THINK that! Go read the decision! Furthermore, blacks were SO inferior, that no Congress or state could even give them rights! That was Dred Scott decision. They should teach the blunt truth about that someday.

And Lincoln dared to say it was a foul decision, intended to spread slavery by deceit, because slave owners could not spread slavery into Kansas by honest means.

Lincoln, of course, was right. The Dred Scott decision was all about the spread of slavery. Just saying such things, according to Davis, was the "intolerable grievance". Let me repeat that - -just SAYING that was what Davis called "the intolerable grievance". Bet they don't teach you that.

As Confederate leader John Mosbey said, in effect "OF course it was about slavery -- I never heard of any reason other than slavery. After the war men made up lofty excuses, but at the time, it was about SLAVERY" He should have said, the spread of slavery.

What do you think the entire history of the US was about from 1800 on? The so called "Compromise" of 1820 was a naked demand to spread slavery into areas where it had been prohibited by law before. But we have to pretend that never happened. The Slave owners demanded, under promise of war, that slavery be spread further. Like Hitler, they would be satisfied with just this increase. But by 1850, the Southern leaders were dissatisfied with their OWN earlier demands, and wanted MORE. Again, they promised war. Again, the North "compromised" but it was a compromise about like a 7-11 robbery is a compromise. At the point of a gun. But we have to pretend that never happened, either.

In 1861, the South again wanted more slavery, to spread slavery, and issued the Ultimatums I told you about above. Only now, they seceded FIRST. Then they issued war ultimatums to a foreign country (the USA) that the USA had to spread slavery for the South! Goofy doesn't begin to describe it.

George Mason, a slave owner himself, predicted these men. He knew Lee's father, of course. He signed the Declaration of Independence. He knew George Washington. He could say these things in 1780, he would have been arrested and tortured if he said them in 1850, because of the Nazi like laws against free speech and free press (that's another story). But Mason said those men who would be the future leaders of the South would be mentally insane (poisoned mentally), they would look like gentlemen, and have religious appearances, but they would be torturers, and void of human decency. They would be raised to see parts of humanity as sub human, and they would cause a national calamity. Mason could not possibly have described men like Lee, Davis, Toombs, Stephens any better.

But we have to pretend the South was honorable. We have to pretend the South did not arrest and torture preachers who dared speak out against slavery.

We have to pretend the South did not search the mails, and do state ordered violence against people who spoke out against slavery. We have to pretend the South was not a totalitarian cesspool.

We have to pretend the South wasn't led by sociopaths and cowards (Davis said all cruel men are cowards -- and he was right). We have to pretend the South did NOT issue the Ultimatums, that the South did NOT shout from the rooftops it was about the spread of slavery. Talk about politically correct?

We should not even teach history in our schools, if we are going to lie to the children. I can see why we don't want to tell our children about the horrible truth of slavery and the men who went to war to spread it. Fine. But why on earth have we allowed these men to be shown as the opposite of what they were? Let's either teach the truth, or teach nothing. Take your pick.

Report violation

Posted By: trd
Date: March 8, 2011   09:21:59 AM

Interesting. While the flag might be flown by biggots, bigotry and hate speech should be protected under freedom of speech. Therefore the flag should be allowed to be flown.

I don't want re-runs of the Dukes of Hazzards to be censured because the car named General Lee has the flag painted on it. If someone is offended by the Dukes of Hazzard's car, they can change the channel.

Report violation

Posted By: FLThunderbird
Date: March 8, 2011   01:44:06 PM

I see RonPaulHatesBlacks, ItchMyFoot, powerplantengineer, FilmCriticOne, Navibear and any one of literally dozens of other handles this one particular poster who spends seemingly every free moment trolling youtube threads about anything that has anything at all to do with the South has joined us. Let's address the points one at a time.

So the war was about the spread of slavery? Hmmm.....I thought the war was about the Lincoln administrations' refusal to accept the peaceful secession of the Southern States.

so….let me get this straight just so I understand. The Southern states LEFT the union thus giving up any claim to the territories and of course any chance of extending slavery to the territories because…..they thought they couldn’t extend slavery to the territories? Ummm….this does not compute.

Next we have mention of these so-called "ultimatums". Gosh I would sure like to see documented evidence from a credible source of these ultimatums being issued by any official body of the Confederate Government. Surely that evidence must exist right? Let's see it.

"And when Lincoln would not obey these ultimatums, the South attacked. " Really? They marched on Pennsylvania did they? I had always thought they fired on Fort Sumter to prevent its reinforcement by federal troops but if there is evidence (again from credible sources) that the Confederacy marched on the Feds because of noncompliance with some ultimatums (I'm still awaiting credible evidence of) I'd sure like to see some evidence for this contention as well.

"Lincoln and the First Shot" (in Reassessing the Presidency, edited by John Denson), John Denson painstakingly shows how Lincoln maneuvered the Confederates into firing the first shot at Fort Sumter. As the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861, "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor" by reprovisioning Fort Sumter. On the day before that the Jersey City American Statesman wrote that "This unarmed vessel, it is well understood, is a mere decoy to draw the first fire from the people of the South." Lincoln's personal secretaries, John Nicolay and John Hay, clearly stated after the war that Lincoln successfully duped the Confederates into firing on Fort Sumter. And as Shelby Foote wrote in The Civil War, "Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down on their threats or else to fire the first shot of the war."

Next we have this:
"Jeff Davis himself, writing in the cool reflection years later, said what the cause of the Civil War was. He said what the "intolerable grievance" was - hey, you should know this. What did your OWN president write in his OWN book about the "intolerable grievance" that made secession mandatory? Do you know? Do you have a clue? You didn't know about your own Ultimatums, so I doubt you know about Davis explanation of the "intolerable grievance". The intolerable grievance -- according to DAVIS HIMSELF -- was that people in the North SAID negative things about Dred Scott decision. "

Yet I notice President Jefferson Davis, during the war, had this to way about why the South was fighting:

"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination." - President Jefferson Davis

The claim was made that a former Confederate Colonel, John Mosby (who later became a Republican) said the South was fighting over slavery. Here by contrast is what the South's top general said at the time.

"This war is not about Slavery." Robert E. Lee

For good measure here is another statement by President Jefferson Davis:

“In any case, I think slave property will be lost eventually.” Jefferson Davis 1861

and another:

"I love the Union and the Constitution,'' he said, ``but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." Jefferson Davis

Here is what even noted liberal historian James McPherson has to say:

"The problem with this lofty rhetoric of dying to make men free was that in 1861 the North was fighting for the restoration of a slaveholding Union. In his July 4 message to Congress, Lincoln reiterated the inaugural pledge that he had 'no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.'" (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 265)

Here is another by McPherson:

In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, historian James McPherson reported on his reading of more than 25,000 letters and more than 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War for Southern Independence and concluded that Confederate soldiers (very few of whom owned slaves) "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government." The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government," writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government."

Sound familiar?

Furthermore as to why the South was fighting aside from the fact that they were defending their homes against invasion by the federal army:

Acton-Lee Correspondence Here is a letter from Lord Acton, one of the most learned men of his day and a very influential writer and political advisor in Britain, explaining in a letter to General Lee his reason for supporting the South (Acton had strong libertarian leanings and spoke out against slavery many times)

“I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.”

To which General Lee responded:

"……I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it." Robert E. Lee

"What do you think the entire history of the US was about from 1800 on?"

Lots of different issues, marked by increasing regional disagreement over economic issues, very different interpretations of the nature of the relationship between the federal government and the states, etc.


"George Mason, a slave owner himself, predicted these men. He knew Lee's father, of course. He signed the Declaration of Independence. He knew George Washington. He could say these things in 1780, he would have been arrested and tortured if he said them in 1850, because of the Nazi like laws against free speech and free press (that's another story). But we have to pretend the South was honorable. We have to pretend the South did not arrest and torture preachers who dared speak out against slavery."

Hmm interesting claim. I will await presentation of evidence from credible sources as to the widespread arrest and torture of those in the South who spoke out against slavery prior to 1861. Why do I suspect no such evidence from any credible source will be forthcoming?

Next there is this claim:
"We have to pretend the South did not search the mails, and do state ordered violence against people who spoke out against slavery. We have to pretend the South was not a totalitarian cesspool."

Here again, the writings of even McPherson would dispute this claim:

"Davis . . . possessed the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus for a total of only sixteen months. During most of that time he exercised this power more sparingly than did his counterpart in Washington. The rhetoric of southern libertarians about executive tyranny thus seems overblown." (McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 435)

I and I am sure many others, eagerly await the presentation of evidence from credible sources (like I have done above) to back up any of the claims made.

Report violation

Posted By: CSAcitizen
Date: March 8, 2011   06:59:42 PM

There is so much hate for the Confederate Flag because of the Lincoln Reconstruction that is still going on. DC does not want anyone to know the truth about the Confederate flags, that stand for freedom, Constitution, and against tryanny - what DC stands for the Confederate Battle flag stands against. But this hate agneda did not begin until the DC agenda was ready for it to begin their next stage in their OWG agenda. The Confederate flags were never thought of as anything racist or hateful or negative - they were always seen a noble flags UNTIL DC's Federal hate agenda to introduce the planned Civil Rights movement where the Negores would be USED to force this next planned attack on America. ALL of it was planned, icluding busing all the so-called 'marchers' from city to city to make it look like there were thousands of Negro people all over in on these 'marches' that strirred up violence everywhere they went and they did it under the guise of "peace". This is all part of the well hidden TRUE history DC neger wants anyone to know about.
The Confederate flags belong to the Negroes and Indians as well as the whites as they all proudly side by side and together fought for freedom and against the Marxism that tyrant Lincoln was forcing on all. The Confederacy had many proud Confederate Negro heroes that we are proud of ! I remember the Negroes flying our Confederate flags well up into the 60's.
The hate began with DC and their hate agenda that they made sure saturated all school text books and their media to this day. NO one has gotten anything of truth from the (illegal) Fedearl Govt schools - all the so-called 'history' has been fabricated to fit into their agendas and to cover up all their war crimes and Treasons they have thrived on since 1861.
The short answer to that question is - Those that hate the Confederate flags have been indoctrinated to do so by DC.
The Confederate flags stand for Christianity and freedom - and DC wants everyone to hate those things and be against them.
DC Federalists stand for total control. The Confederate CSA flags stand for freedom, Constitution, soverenty and what our Founders establihsed that Lincoln destroyed.. The USA and the CSA are two differnt nations that made the mistake of experimenting with sharing a single general govt. They are STILL today two separate naitons - NOT one as everyone has been indoctrinated to believe. The US illegally invaded the peaceful CSA south nation to force them to join Lincoln's NEW Marxist union. Lincoln had destroyed the Founders real govt and REPLACED with his own Marxist one. The south fought against exactly what we again today are all fighting against ! Communism Marxism (same thing). Since we have never been allowed to know our real true history that has deliberatley been kept from us - no one today knows what the Licnoln War was really about unless they get ahold of some truth history books. They have had it drilled into them to hate the south and that the south was the slave nation and that the south nation is who had the slave flags - and the lies just kepty being forced into everyone - NONE Of the true ! All those things are true of the US north nation. But they wrote it so the south got blamed for everything in order to cover up all their war crimes and Treason. They still are doing so.

Report violation

Posted By: WLC
Date: March 13, 2011   11:26:52 PM

You have absolutely got to be kidding me. The reason why the flag is hated and seen as racist is because: the south chose to secede due to their wish to preserve their "peculiar institution" that is, the "right" to hold slaves. The issues that divided north and south went beyond slavery of course, but sure as heck included slavery. Another thing, I cannot believe this article is glorifying secession....er, treason.... er... secession. And mentioning things like gay marriage and Roe v Wade, as laws you might not want to obey! As justfication for secession...er...treason....er....secession. The very thing about the war was to preserve the Union, NOT to leave the future of the country in the hands of a bunch of misguided, opinionated ideologues who would dare put their pet "value" of the day over preserving the Union! You really think US dominance, US trade with other countries, etc, would exist if there was not a USA? If the south had prevailed in its secession, there would be (at least) two nations, not one!

Report violation

Posted By: Frank the Eagle
Date: March 14, 2011   11:50:34 AM

It may be but then what about he Black people who wear the ANU T-Shirt? I think the flag US/Confederate/Irish is a simple mark of pride. Most people who fly the Stars and Bars haven't even read "The Real Lincoln." Beauty or ugliness in in the eye of the beholder. I'm not particularly partial to purple and Green/orange color schemes for a hoe but I have no interes tin a law requiring a person to paint their home any color they want. I lke girls. Always have. Always will. But if a pair of homosexuals move in next door I'm not terrified of catching any diseae or changing my preference. I really don't care what their marital status is. If they can afford to move ito my neighborhood I will try to be a good neighbor. I once owned a small business. We worked in various office buildings. I',m neither in favor of hiring or not hiring any particular group. But there is a simple consideration - what is best for the business and the existing employee base. For example I personally had no problem with the 79s or 80s T-Shirt that had the picture of a mushroom cloud with the legend "Made in the USA - Tested in Japan." But i couldn't very well send that individual to work in a Japanese office now could I? So we had a dress code. I really didn't care what color a person's skin was nor how their plumbing was set up or who they had as repair persons. Some people simply learn faster than others. Is that because they were educated at a private school or was it the teachers? I didn't really care - the best workers stayed the worst left - by their will or mine.

I particularly liked the part of the article that addresses and individual's Right NOT to belong to something as well as TO belong to something. Who was the comedian who quipped, "I would never be a member of a group that would have me as a member?"

Report violation

Posted By: Frank the Eagle
Date: March 14, 2011   12:29:11 PM

What about he Native Americans who still live on Federally mandated Reservations? I believe in one set of Rights for all. Not a bunch of subdivided "Special" groups. The old divide and conquer is the Law of the Land today. Identify a group, offer them a benefit and get the votes. Then steal all you can while in office.

The US doesn't practice wha tit preaches. Look at the situation in Cuba. Teh Castro brothers are COMMUNIST dictators. So What? Where is most of the US debt? In COMMUNIST China. No other nation has any more reasons to hate the US than China.

The US government has hated Castro ever since he shut down the casinos and whore houses that were servicing he New York/New Jersey mobs and your Congress.

What about Libya? Almost all of the "Popular Democratic" insurrections in the Middle east are anti-US. China has lots of USD. Now what if China deci9des to offload that toilet paper to the oil producing nations and the US can't match the price?

You only have one supplier of petroleum that is friendly to you. And that is yet another servant of the Biggest enslaver of history - England. You can't consider Mexico sas a friend. OK, their government understands your game. They just play the other side of the Board. You wanna stop drug wars? Two options Stop using them or Legalize them. Either way, you save Billions of USD and think of how many homes and schools that could build.

Of course that would increase your labor pool a good bit. But that's what the Government needs - more poor people dependent on it to gouge the few productive members of your society left.

Report violation