Posted on Aug 24, 2014
Is the confederate flag considered offensive by the majority of America?
62.2K
752
311
12
12
0
Im doing this pole in reference to another question since it can't be added to it after the fact. No response is necessary if you don't want to, just trying to take the survey. If you'd like to comment you can go to this thread as well. https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/displaying-the-confederate-flag-on-your-pov-or-person-while-on-a-military-installation
Posted in these groups: 
Confederate Flag
Confederate Flag
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 109
2
2
0
I never considered it offensive. I considered it ridiculous to fly a flag other than the one that represents our country. It was the battle flag of the Confederacy, then some rednecks hijacked it to represent the KKK and, by proxy, slavery.
Well, Tony, it's not about hate, it's about heritage. Fine. Then why does no one fly the Union Jack, or the French Tri Coleur?
I will salute one flag, and one only.
Well, Tony, it's not about hate, it's about heritage. Fine. Then why does no one fly the Union Jack, or the French Tri Coleur?
I will salute one flag, and one only.
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Flag of Hawaii - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The flag of the state of Hawaii (Hawaiian: Ka Hae Hawaiʻi) is the official standard symbolizing Hawaii as a U.S. state. The same flag had also previously been used by the kingdom, protectorate, republic, and territory of Hawaii. It is the only U.S. state flag to feature the Union Jack of the United Kingdom, a remnant of the period in Hawaiian history when it was associated with the British Empire.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I'll just answer the question directly. Since no meaningful, statistically valid survey has been conducted, the answer will remain in Opinionville.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Glenn Adair
I don't believe the majority of America even considers the "Confederate Battle Flag" an official flag of our government. I see the Mexican National flag on immigrant's residences, and consider that offensive. Is the British "Union Jack" offensive? Why don't we vote the flags at the UN in NYC offensive? If the "Fuhrer" would have just stayed on one front, we would be under this symbol...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
This flag provokes the same emotional response as seeing a swastika (for me anyway). It may mean something else or something specific for the individual but symbolically these things are connected to oppression and prejudice. Millions of Americans died in a civil war over this crap...unless you are expecting the South to rise again it's better left in a box next to grampa's Nazi memorabilia.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No matter what, the Stars and Bars has too much bad history to be displayed.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't like it just because I read what it stood for. But I do believe most people that got the confederate flag on their license plates or hang it in their yard or on their trucks don't follow the true meaning. I think they just take it as a southerner thing; simply stating they're proud to be a southerner.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It's both. Symbols (like a flag) only have the meaning that YOU attach to it. For some it's Southern Pride, to others it's racism. Both are correct.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I've never taken the flag - in its current day usage - to mean anything more than a symbol of rebellion or southern "identity" for lack of a better term. As with any symbol it is open to interpretation and in this case controversy over what that interpretation is based on the flag's history. I can see why people feel they way they do from different perspectives, but I don't personally identify with it beyond, "The Dukes of Hazzard"
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Well, many of the Confederate states were so kind as to leave for posterity the precise reasons for their treasonous secession. For the historically illiterate (or people who were sleeping during their high school and college history courses), those documents are called primary sources. If one actually reads the declaration of causes for secession for those states with a modicum of reading comprehension, it becomes immediately apparent that the South seceded precisely to preserve the evil institution of slavery. I will quote snippets from a few of these declarations:
Georgia:
"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by [the North's] leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."
(Georgia later cited the North's aiding and abetting of fugitive slaves as a principle cause for secession.)
Mississippi: A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
"[The North] advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."
"It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."
(Note the last statement! Anyone familiar with the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 knows that the Civil War was a war of Southern aggression.)
Texas: A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union
"[Texas] 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."
"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."
These viewpoints are absolutely appalling. For the exact same reasons one should not display a Nazi swastika, one should not display the Confederate flag.
1LT L S
Georgia:
"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by [the North's] leaders and applauded by its followers. With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."
(Georgia later cited the North's aiding and abetting of fugitive slaves as a principle cause for secession.)
Mississippi: A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
"[The North] advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."
"It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion."
(Note the last statement! Anyone familiar with the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 knows that the Civil War was a war of Southern aggression.)
Texas: A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union
"[Texas] 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."
"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."
These viewpoints are absolutely appalling. For the exact same reasons one should not display a Nazi swastika, one should not display the Confederate flag.
1LT L S
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
CPT (Join to see) Thank you, I too enjoy our exchange of ideas, even though we disagree. Regarding disagreement I'd like to address a few of your assertions above.
First, regarding the idea that the colonies were not equal partners with England. This is true. It is also true that the Southern States did not feel they were equal partners with the Central government they helped to create as their agent to the world. Though Slavery was a large part of the reason many of the States cited toward secession, the exponentially expanding taxation placed on the southern ports alienated the South from the more populous northern States (able to vote for excise increases) and from the Central government itself. The increased excise taxes were focused on the goods and exports of the Southern States, in large parts because the South exported far more goods than did the North.
Regarding the words rebel and revolutionary used to describe our Founders, a look at the Declaration of Independence will show that the Colonies wished to NOT rebel, and to NOT have a revolution. Instead, they, in effect wanted to secede. The last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence states:
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
With respect to the legality of secession I would respectfully submit that your argument places the cart before the horse on two counts. First it was my contention that the States did NOT form a confederation and then secede. Instead they first Seceded, at which point joining, or forming a confederation, as a free State would NOT constitute the violation you cite. Regarding your second point of citing Texas vs White, I would point out that this case occurred in 1869, (4 years after the War ended). One might expect that a Federal court would rule that Secession is illegal following a horribly costly war fought, and won on those same grounds. I believe it would be prudent to utilize words, law and doctrine that existed prior to the States seceding to make such an argument. It's kind of like arguing that because we passed a law after 911 not allowing box cutters on airplanes, that the terrorists acted illegally because they used box cutters that we now see as dangerous and illegal. It would be ex post facto in nature.
Lastly, I would argue that you were correct when you stated that the Constitution IS mute on the right of secession. Therefore the 10th amendment tells us that the Federal government has no power to enforce or prohibit such an action. The article I posted by Walter Williams above contains some convincing arguments that tell us that Secession wasn't addressed, because the right to secession was assumed. It's also interesting to note that Rhode Island, and New York would ONLY vote to ratify the Constitution with the guarantee that the right to secession did exist.
Respectfully
First, regarding the idea that the colonies were not equal partners with England. This is true. It is also true that the Southern States did not feel they were equal partners with the Central government they helped to create as their agent to the world. Though Slavery was a large part of the reason many of the States cited toward secession, the exponentially expanding taxation placed on the southern ports alienated the South from the more populous northern States (able to vote for excise increases) and from the Central government itself. The increased excise taxes were focused on the goods and exports of the Southern States, in large parts because the South exported far more goods than did the North.
Regarding the words rebel and revolutionary used to describe our Founders, a look at the Declaration of Independence will show that the Colonies wished to NOT rebel, and to NOT have a revolution. Instead, they, in effect wanted to secede. The last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence states:
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
With respect to the legality of secession I would respectfully submit that your argument places the cart before the horse on two counts. First it was my contention that the States did NOT form a confederation and then secede. Instead they first Seceded, at which point joining, or forming a confederation, as a free State would NOT constitute the violation you cite. Regarding your second point of citing Texas vs White, I would point out that this case occurred in 1869, (4 years after the War ended). One might expect that a Federal court would rule that Secession is illegal following a horribly costly war fought, and won on those same grounds. I believe it would be prudent to utilize words, law and doctrine that existed prior to the States seceding to make such an argument. It's kind of like arguing that because we passed a law after 911 not allowing box cutters on airplanes, that the terrorists acted illegally because they used box cutters that we now see as dangerous and illegal. It would be ex post facto in nature.
Lastly, I would argue that you were correct when you stated that the Constitution IS mute on the right of secession. Therefore the 10th amendment tells us that the Federal government has no power to enforce or prohibit such an action. The article I posted by Walter Williams above contains some convincing arguments that tell us that Secession wasn't addressed, because the right to secession was assumed. It's also interesting to note that Rhode Island, and New York would ONLY vote to ratify the Constitution with the guarantee that the right to secession did exist.
Respectfully
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG Gerhard S. My previous response was a bit unclear, but I am tracking that the individual states obviously seceded prior to forming a Confederacy. My only point was that the Southern states had indeed formed a confederation prior to the start of the Civil War, thus clearly justifying the North waging war on the South. Your question regarding the legality of individual states seceding is a lot more interesting and less clear-cut. The fact that there have been court cases on the matter seem to indicate that it hasn't been definitively settled one way or the other. My only question would be who has the burden of proof-the state wishing to secede or the federal government attempting to prohibit secession? While the Constitution does not provide clear guidance, if one examines the intent of the very creation of the Constitution, I believe that the Founders generally intended for a stronger federal government than you are insinuating. But, that is just my uninformed (relatively) viewpoint, and I would need to do a lot more research in order to be capable of rendering a truly substantive analysis.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
CPT (Join to see) Perhaps I too was not clear, please allow me to rephrase..... ONCE the States had seceded, that is, divorced themselves individually from the government of the united States, what power does the United States have to claim rebellion, insurrection, or the formation of a Confederacy to States that are no longer associated with the Central government?
Regarding who has the burden of proof, it is truly a one sided situation. One would think in the world of the North that an escaped slave would be safe from return to his masters in the South. Dred Scott and the fugitive slave act which required captured slaves be returned to their masters in the south, goes to prove the folly of expecting higher levels of government to give up political power in favor of individual or States rights. Losing the Southern States meant losing the majority of Federal revenues as the government was funded by excise taxes at the time. So, expecting Lincoln to allow secession was apparently just too much to ask.
I would grant you are correct that the Framers generally wanted a stronger federal government.... but only a little stronger than under the Articles of Confederation. Clearly, some, like Hamilton argued for an almost monarchical system with a strong central bank to further ensnare the States in (war) debt and dependence to the Central government while others like Jefferson and Madison found the idea of charging the States for the costs of the war an abhorrent idea, and argued for a significantly weaker government, one that ONLY served the States with the powers enumerated to it by the Constitution, leaving all other matters to be regulated by the States or defaulting to the People. Candidly, the Framers would not recognize the Federal government we have today as anything they envisioned, and likely would be calling for a dissolution themselves.
Jefferson wrote regarding new States in the new Louisiana territory in a letter to John C. Breckinridge, Aug. 12, 1803):
“…Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?…The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”
The right to secession was largely assumed, and even, as Dr. Walter Williams tells us in the article posted above regarding Secession.... (before the southern states had yet to secede)
"Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?"
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secession-its-constitutional/#E15CH0DTiAx7XI0F.99
and that the Northern political parties and news papers of the day felt secession was legal....
"The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil – evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secession-its-constitutional/#E15CH0DTiAx7XI0F.99
It seems clear, that up until the Southern States actually DID secede, that the intent had been to allow secession, and that Lincoln's desire to keep the Union together for any number of reasons, made the argument by force to disallow such a move, and to forever change the relationship between the individual States, and the Federal government they originally banded together to create to act as their agent to the world, to provide for a common defense, and to resolve disputes between the many States.
We don't have to agree. I understand that the conventional (taught in school) knowledge regarding much of history often tells only one side of the story, that which the writers wish to present, and that it is often complicated to ruin a good old story with inconvenient facts. Our history books are severely lacking in this regard, particularly as relates to the Republican form of government that was created for us, and the marvelously spun web of checks and balances woven into our Constitution. (Too bad they're being largely ignored today, by both our parties in power.)
Respectful regards, it's been my pleasure to exchange ideas in a lively manner with you.
Regarding who has the burden of proof, it is truly a one sided situation. One would think in the world of the North that an escaped slave would be safe from return to his masters in the South. Dred Scott and the fugitive slave act which required captured slaves be returned to their masters in the south, goes to prove the folly of expecting higher levels of government to give up political power in favor of individual or States rights. Losing the Southern States meant losing the majority of Federal revenues as the government was funded by excise taxes at the time. So, expecting Lincoln to allow secession was apparently just too much to ask.
I would grant you are correct that the Framers generally wanted a stronger federal government.... but only a little stronger than under the Articles of Confederation. Clearly, some, like Hamilton argued for an almost monarchical system with a strong central bank to further ensnare the States in (war) debt and dependence to the Central government while others like Jefferson and Madison found the idea of charging the States for the costs of the war an abhorrent idea, and argued for a significantly weaker government, one that ONLY served the States with the powers enumerated to it by the Constitution, leaving all other matters to be regulated by the States or defaulting to the People. Candidly, the Framers would not recognize the Federal government we have today as anything they envisioned, and likely would be calling for a dissolution themselves.
Jefferson wrote regarding new States in the new Louisiana territory in a letter to John C. Breckinridge, Aug. 12, 1803):
“…Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?…The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”
The right to secession was largely assumed, and even, as Dr. Walter Williams tells us in the article posted above regarding Secession.... (before the southern states had yet to secede)
"Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?"
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secession-its-constitutional/#E15CH0DTiAx7XI0F.99
and that the Northern political parties and news papers of the day felt secession was legal....
"The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil – evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secession-its-constitutional/#E15CH0DTiAx7XI0F.99
It seems clear, that up until the Southern States actually DID secede, that the intent had been to allow secession, and that Lincoln's desire to keep the Union together for any number of reasons, made the argument by force to disallow such a move, and to forever change the relationship between the individual States, and the Federal government they originally banded together to create to act as their agent to the world, to provide for a common defense, and to resolve disputes between the many States.
We don't have to agree. I understand that the conventional (taught in school) knowledge regarding much of history often tells only one side of the story, that which the writers wish to present, and that it is often complicated to ruin a good old story with inconvenient facts. Our history books are severely lacking in this regard, particularly as relates to the Republican form of government that was created for us, and the marvelously spun web of checks and balances woven into our Constitution. (Too bad they're being largely ignored today, by both our parties in power.)
Respectful regards, it's been my pleasure to exchange ideas in a lively manner with you.
Secession: It’s constitutional
For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission, or simply parting company? In a marriage, [...]
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
My apologies for the length of my response... I'm severely lacking in the art of brevity.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
No it's only a flag from a country that no longer exists
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I compare this to the situation our Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) are in. LEOs are not bad at all, it just so happens that the few cases were the LEOs are jackasses and do something horrible is always reported and not the millions of good LEOs and their contributions to society. The same is for the Confederate flag. People from the South support the Confederate flag because it represents our way of life and shows respect to the people that lived in the South before us, specifically the Soldiers and families that fought for the South. Folks from the South are (generaly) good people. It is just unfortunate that most extremists use it as a hate tool. It is not hate, it's heritage!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google