Ignorant Ideas Being Considered True

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Okay, I was looking through the student run paper today and I almost crapped a brick in disgust.

I shall let you read the article, then my response (which I just emailed to the paper) and we shall discuss things....or something.

[Con]federate flags
Self-censorship must be practiced in order to keep our freedoms
By: Zachary T. Eckels
Issue date: 11/29/06 Section: Opinion
I've heard many arguments in support of the confederate flag in my lifetime. Some were among the stupidest ideas I've ever heard in my life, while the rest were only half-truths among whole lies.

The strongest argument in support of the stars and bars was that the Civil War really had nothing to do with slavery before its end. It can even be argued one of America's most revered Republicans, Abraham Lincoln, had no intention of freeing the slaves in the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation.

In his book "Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream," Lerone Bennett argues the proclamation is carefully worded to only free slaves in the rebel Southern states.

The problem is, these states were not under Union control at this time, and therefore the proclamation freed no one.

However, the person who feeds you this argument, appearing to understand and care about race-related issues, fails to recognize one key point. Even if Lincoln didn't intend to attach slavery to the Civil War, today's Americans do. Therefore, presenting it still appears racist.

The other arguments, at least the ones worth mentioning, all seem to defend the personal use of the rebel flag. We've all heard people argue them before, trying just as hard to convince themselves as they are trying to convince you.

"It's patriotic to remember history," they say, or, "it's good to rebel against authority," usually followed by some random quote from a Revolutionary War figure. Oh, and my favorite, "But I actually believe in a confederacy for our government."

Let me debunk these three arguments in order.

One: people will remember the brutal history of the Civil War with or without that damn flag. It was by far the deadliest war in our young nation's history and should only be remembered with the respect such a war deserves.

Two: while our founding fathers, being the slave-owning racists they were, probably would agree with the rebel spirit of the South, it does not mean we should use their quotes in that manner.

We've progressed rapidly throughout the past 200 years, but we're nowhere near where we could be. During this progression, we've begun to translate the words of these men in more significant ways.

Expanding the use of the term "men" to all races and sexes is slowly moving us away from our history of denying rights to a brighter future of supplying them to all.

Along with this progression, we have come to shun physical violence. Well, unorganized violence at least.

We've replaced bloody wars over trivial issues with peaceful protests and a stronger democracy. The idea of being a happy-go-lucky rebel excited for bloodshed belongs in the past.

Third: If you really believe in a confederacy, there are other ways to show it. Simple phrases like "Kansan first, American second" (without the flag, of course) would be a clearer way to get your point across.

In the end, we're lucky to live in a country that allows such freedom of speech. The idea of Nazism is so horrible that Germany has forbidden the production of pro-Nazi materials.

Fighting ideas in such ways only gives them credit they don't deserve.

It's better to allow them to exist, while educating the masses to prove them wrong and explaining why they are so horrid.

In the United States, the confederate flag is a symbol of an idea nearly as horrible as the Holocaust.

While we thankfully didn't go as far as genocide, we still took the freedoms and erased the history of an incredible number of people.

There is no reason to support such a horrible thing.

When I opened the Collegian this morning I expected another one of these obscene opinion pieces, but the article entitled “[Con]federate flags” shocked me beyond belief. Perhaps Zachary T. Eckels hasn’t taken a history class lately, but it seems he’s fighting “the good fight” against the Confederate Naval Jack. It surely isn’t the Confederate national flag (“Bonnie Blue flag that bears the Single Star”) or the Confederate Battle Flag (which is a square and not a rectangle).
Aside from my comment about the historical inaccuracy of the article and artwork, I’d like to ask a question; why is it wrong to have some southern pride? Just like Mr. Eckels said, the war wasn’t about slavery, but people associate it with slavery now. Well, my friends, that just shows you how ignorant people are these days. We should not conform and drop our heritage just because there are people who don’t want to educate themselves on the truth of the matter.
Is it really that wrong for me to show a little respect to the side that lost the war, the side that was fighting for the rights of states rather than a large government? I suppose the Private from Virginia that died at Fredericksburg was a racist for defending his homeland, or the Georgian who never owned a slave who starved to death in Elmira prison camp; I suppose he was a bigoted racist too. I am saddened that we have forgotten why these men fought and died.

Unfortunately I only had 250 words to work with in my response, or I would have realy let this guy have it.


My main concern is that people have this ability to just spout off bull crap under the guise of "Opinion" and blatantly lie. It's his opinion, and aparently we're all entitled to one, but where do you draw the line?

[sephodwyrm]

We should not conform and drop our heritage just because there are people who don’t want to educate themselves on the truth of the matter.

So what is the Confederate heritage?

[Caelius]

The war was fought over because of slavery, I don't want to open that Can O Worms again (if I haven't already) though. But I do agree that there shouldn't be anytype of censorship involved in people wanting to invoke their 1st Amendment rights.

[sephodwyrm]

The war was fought over because of slavery

Erm, I think even I knew it was more about anti-secessionist goal.
But slavery was also a major co-player and reason for the war.
In any case, I truly support this guy. The true American:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Br...bolitionist%29

Ave John Brown!
All Honor and Glory to the spirit of Humanism.

[Nationalist_Cause]

The slavery issue was certainly a huge factor leading up to the war. But at its core the war was fought over a single issue: Whether the federal government was able to assert its authority over a single state or a group of states. The issue was decided by force of arms and today's bloated, hubristic, and imperialist government is the result.

At the very core of every war is, in some form, a struggle for power. Freeing the slaves was a noble and humane byproduct but a byproduct it remains.

[danzig]

Saying the civil war was about slavery is imo like saying WW2 was about Germany's desire to kill all jews....in alot of ways the acts of slavery/holocaust are symbols of a bigger issue at hand. For Germany it was scape goating, blaming someone for their misery with the Civil War it was South viewing the rich north trying to dictate to them and hence weaken them as 'lesser' states. Im reasonably certain the thoughts in average confederate soldier wasnt "im fighting this so I can enslave blacks" but rather "im fighting this because the north is trying to tell us what we can and cannot do". Slavery was going to end one way or another in the US regardless.

I have no problems with anyone wavering a confederate flag because there was more to be a confederate then slavery...with Swastika its a bit different because there is very little in Nazi 'point of view' that is positive while with Confederate the issue of state rights and limiting central goverment power to dictate to the states is imo very much a valid and positive thing. Sounds to me like the author of your article shows a failure to understand the true concerns of south during the time that went far beyond slavery. As Nationalist said and he is right imo slavery issue was a byproduct of the conflict or if you want to apply modern reasoning behind it if Civil War was fought with today's media Lincoln would be accused of using slavery as a moral issue to justify his military action

Erm, I think even I knew it was more about anti-secessionist goal.
But slavery was also a major co-player and reason for the war.
In any case, I truly support this guy. The true American:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Br...bolitionist%29

Ave John Brown!
All Honor and Glory to the spirit of Humanism.

So combating violence and injustice with violence is valid in your opinion? Brown wasnt too far away from terroristic like actions. Amusing too wikapedia article quotes "it is misleading to identify Brown with modern terrorists."...if it walks like a duck, quakes like a duck its probably a duck.

[RusskiSoldat]

I never understood the phenomenon of souther pride.
What exactly are you so attached to?
None of you were around in the CSA and can't really brag about the good times you had there (a lot of older people are nostalgic for the USSR because they remember themselves being young and carefree in the 70s and 80s, or even 50s) and there is no deep issue here. I think it's been more or less proven that confederate governments are highly inefficient and prone to breaking down.
The current USA system is a godsend, it gives states vast autonomy, but still keeps a strong federal government in hand to ensure success for the entire country.
Tell me, what rights would you like to see delegated to the states?
Surely a state should not be responsible for it's own army, the very progression of war has been from feudal brigands to national armies, not the other way around, and would creating more inner conflict when the US is so heavily involved in the world really be worth it?
I don't even see the ends.
Most states are deep purple, not red or blue, and as such would face issues as divisively as they do now.
And considering the south isn't being oppressed or forced to pay indemnities to the north, I see no reason to resent the north so.
It has brought you the great freedom and peace you live in today, after all.

[danzig]

I never understood the phenomenon of souther pride.
What exactly are you so attached to?

Same reason people born in the US who never stepped foot in Mexico wave Mexican flags at illegal immigrate rallies, same reason you'll still see Italy's flag in some Italian neighborhoods here in NYC but most cant speak a word of Italian, the same reason there is an Irish parade etc etc a cultural thing, a sense of identity...but only one is viewed negatively and inherently racist. Equating the confederate flag with nothing but slavery would be like equating Ireland's flag with drunks imo. Its an icon of southern pride, yes some might use as a rally cry of racism but not all hell not even most. I say this as a born/raised New Yorker but with a grandmother who was pure 'southern belle' type.

The current USA system is a godsend, it gives states vast autonomy, but still keeps a strong federal government in hand to ensure success for the entire country.

That was the problem, the perceptions that the federal goverment was threatening to erode/take away that autonomy making southern states basically at the mercy at the richer north. Yeah a confederacy wouldnt work but the fear of an absolute power central goverment is equally worrisome. Remember alot of US early history is deeply rooted in states rights vs federal test of wills.

[lawngnome]

Russki, most see it as a tribute to the hundreds of thousands that fought and died... needlessly...

They don't really see it as a slap against the current Federal government... it's more akin to they way Russians might remember Peter the Great... he has little relevance to the current state of affairs in Russia, is remarkably in contrast with the current opinion of Russia's people, etc. Nevertheless, he is important to Russian heritage, and important to understanding the way things have progressed. So too is the Confederacy and Jefferson Davis important to the history of the South...

I live in Texas currently (half 'deep south', half 'southwest') and there is significant use of the Confederate flag... I don't see anything wrong with it, personally, though I would never fly such a flag.

[Dromikaites]

Humm, let's see what the declarations of secession of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississipi and Texas said what was the main reason to separate. You can find those declarations here.

Ooops! By their representatives' own words, they seceded because of willing to preserve slavery. So the most devastating war in the history of the USA happened not because the federal government wanted to "opress" the states in general but because it attempted to "opress" the slave owners.

When the people who decided to separate their states from the rest of US said slavery was the main reason I guess the ignorants are those who have formed an opinion without reading the official documents of the secessionist states.

Flying the "Confederate Flag" in any form means only "I agree with those declarations of secession, I think the ******* should be slaves and I'm ready to kill and to be killed for my right to own negro slaves". I would however expect such a brave person to follow through. Since guns can be bought freely in US (including by the black people - what an outrage!) the killing and be killed part should not be too difficult to accomplish.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

What exactly are you so attached to?

heritage, a common history.

Tell me, what rights would you like to see delegated to the states?
Surely a state should not be responsible for it's own army, the very progression of war has been from feudal brigands to national armies, not the other way around, and would creating more inner conflict when the US is so heavily involved in the world really be worth it?

No one is argueing for a second civil war or a confederation, we simply want to be able to show our pride without being lambasted as racist biggots by an uninformed ignorant public.

Ooops! By their representatives' own words, they seceded because of willing to preserve slavery.

Why would they not? It was part of the economic system. It was not the fact that there were abolitionists in the north that caused the war, it was the fact that the North was trying to force the south to do what it wanted via the Federal Government.

So the most devastating war in the history of the USA happened not because the federal government wanted to "opress" the states in general but because it attempted to "opress" the slave owners.

Again, how many Rebel soldiers owned slaves? Honestly, you talk like you have the official statistics on hand and that 100% of the Confederates and their supporters had slaves.
Confederate Generals on Slavery
“a moral and political evil” - Robert E Lee, Highest Ranking General in the Confederate Army
“curse.” - Joseph E Johston, Second Highest Ranking General in the Confederate Army

Other Rebel men of power also looked down upons slavery, the following is a list of said men:
[LIST]

• General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson
• General Patrick Cleburne
• General Daniel Govan
• General John H. Kelly
• General Marc Lowrey
• Governor William Smith of Virginia
• Governor Joseph Brown of Georgia
• Governor Milledge Bonham of South Carolina
• Governor Charles Clark of Mississippi
• Governor Zebulon Vance of North Carolina

let me quote Micheal T Griffith

"Many people aren't aware that four of the states that fought for the Union were slave states. In addition, four of the states that joined the Confederacy did not take part in the first wave of secession; they didn’t leave the Union because of slavery but because they strongly objected to Lincoln's decision to use force against the seceded states. "
" In one famous exchange between a captured Confederate soldier and Union troops, the Union soldiers asked their prisoner if he was a slaveowner. He answered that he wasn't, and that in fact he was rather poor. "Then why are you fighting for the Confederacy?", they asked him. "Because you're here," he replied. "

Another fine quote for you:

Also, as early as 1862, the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah Benjamin, proposed abolishing slavery in exchange for European diplomatic recognition. Two years later, in 1864, President Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders were prepared to abolish slavery to gain European diplomatic recognition in order to save the Confederacy. I think these facts are important because they show that independence was more important to top Confederate leaders than the continuation of slavery.

Why then, would the Confederacy attempt to abolish slavery if slavery was the main goal of the war? it doesn't add up.

[General_Curtis_LeMay]

heritage, a common history.


No one is argueing for a second civil war or a confederation, we simply want to be able to show our pride without being lambasted as racist biggots by an uninformed ignorant public.


Why would they not? It was part of the economic system. It was not the fact that there were abolitionists in the north that caused the war, it was the fact that the North was trying to force the south to do what it wanted via the Federal Government.


Again, how many Rebel soldiers owned slaves? Honestly, you talk like you have the official statistics on hand and that 100% of the Confederates and their supporters had slaves.
Confederate Generals on Slavery
“a moral and political evil” - Robert E Lee, Highest Ranking General in the Confederate Army
“curse.” - Joseph E Johston, Second Highest Ranking General in the Confederate Army

Other Rebel men of power also looked down upons slavery, the following is a list of said men:
[list]

• General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson
• General Patrick Cleburne
• General Daniel Govan
• General John H. Kelly
• General Marc Lowrey
• Governor William Smith of Virginia
• Governor Joseph Brown of Georgia
• Governor Milledge Bonham of South Carolina
• Governor Charles Clark of Mississippi
• Governor Zebulon Vance of North Carolina

let me quote Micheal T Griffith

Another fine quote for you:


Why then, would the Confederacy attempt to abolish slavery if slavery was the main goal of the war? it doesn't add up.

Thus poving that the war was faught over states rights, land, and money. The north oppressed the south in an evil way, by taxing cotton. The south responded by saying "screw you, we'll make our own state." For that reson that reason thwy are demonized. The resulting war cost nearnly half a million american lives, and desroyed the livesa and livlihoods of countless millions. This war is in schools greatly biased toward a Northen perspective, idolizing Lincohn, Grtant and Sherman. It was an atrocity, one that should be remenbered by all Americans, for if we arte to lean from History, we must know it. Thus outside of a reverant knowlege and remorse for its occourance, there should ber no memoriy of it. A person who wears a confederate flag, shows that they believe in a cause whioch spread death across our fair continent. It would be like a British monarch who wears a Schastica(sp?) to a party, under the pretense of saying, those were the good days for the monarchy, and i'm showing my dissaproval for the way the Israelis run thier country. (I know that happened). It is the same type of disresect. If you had asked the soldiers who saw and lived through the civil war if a Confederate flag should be raised above a person's house, they would give an infatic NO! Why? Because they witnessed the terror and wold not have aproved of people using that symbal as a way of showing southern pride or of showing a hatred for the .gov; it was the south's embarrasment that tore it apart, not a symbal of glory.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

No takers? I'm disapointed guys, I realy am.

[fieldmarshal]

i dont belive the confedrate flag as a symbol of slavery and opression, if thats the case so should be the current american flag, even tho slavery was abolished under the union, african americans suffered as much under the current american flag especially in the early 1900's under the kkk, who did carry a american flag.

i see ppl who have confedrate flags in their homes or cars as southerners...everyone else is yankees. i dont see them as racists or ignorant. It does have to do with pride, ppl in the south are proud of their heritage, and their way of life. The way of life in south has changed, there is no racism or hate. The confedrate flag represents the south, it still does, but in a different way.
People who have a problem with that should just go to hell..or new york.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Thus poving that the war was faught over states rights, land, and money. The north oppressed the south in an evil way, by taxing cotton. The south responded by saying "screw you, we'll make our own state." For that reson that reason thwy are demonized.

Precisely

A person who wears a confederate flag, shows that they believe in a cause whioch spread death across our fair continent.

I don't see how that is true at all. The confederate states wanted to secede peacefully, even sending emmisaries to D.C. shortly after secesion to negotiate a peacefull withdrawall, but Lincoln would have none of it. The fact is that the United States initiated the conflict.

If you had asked the soldiers who saw and lived through the civil war if a Confederate flag should be raised above a person's house, they would give an infatic NO!

That is malarkey and you know it. Federal Units returned captured Rebel flags to their Units because they knew what the Rebels had sacraficed in the name of the confederacey and visa-versa. Confederate and Union soldiers alike would have no problem with each others flags afterwords. Federal Soldiers knew the war was over and that the flag held no inherant power anymore other than that of nostalgia and historical significance.

it was the south's embarrasment that tore it apart, not a symbal of glory.

It was Federal Armies that tore the south apart, it was Northern attitude of preserving the Union that ultimatley destroyed the south.

[Dromikaites]

Humm, let's see:

1. The first 4 states stated in their official declarations of secession that slavery was the reason to do so.

2. The Confederate government considered abolishing slavery in exchange for receiving diplomatic recognition. This seems to indicate 2 things:
- abolishing slavery would not have ruined the economy of the South;
- the Confederate government was fully aware slavery was considered an abomination by the rest of the civilised world

3. The generals who did not own slaves and who also did not hold the slave owners in high esteem are no different than the WW2 German generals who did not like the Nazis. No matter what they were thinking of the main political issues of both wars, their actions led to the deaths of millions. Today the Confederate generals would be convicted for crimes against peace.

Sooo flying the Confederate flag still looks like associating oneself with slavery and crimes against peace.

[RusskiSoldat]

They don't really see it as a slap against the current Federal government... it's more akin to they way Russians might remember Peter the Great... he has little relevance to the current state of affairs in Russia, is remarkably in contrast with the current opinion of Russia's people, etc. Nevertheless, he is important to Russian heritage, and important to understanding the way things have progressed. So too is the Confederacy and Jefferson Davis important to the history of the South...

What?
Peter the Great's determination in building up Russia, his acts of personal heroism and his imperialism resonates with many Russians of today.
So when we remember Peter the Great, we remember the entire man.

That was the problem, the perceptions that the federal goverment was threatening to erode/take away that autonomy making southern states basically at the mercy at the richer north. Yeah a confederacy wouldnt work but the fear of an absolute power central goverment is equally worrisome. Remember alot of US early history is deeply rooted in states rights vs federal test of wills.

At which point did it look like the federal government would take autonomy away?
I can think of no act that would be interpreted as this, except the constitutional and nationwide abolition of slavery.
While it's understandable that many in the south were against this, it doesn't make their cause any better.

Why would they not? It was part of the economic system. It was not the fact that there were abolitionists in the north that caused the war, it was the fact that the North was trying to force the south to do what it wanted via the Federal Government.

So you refused to abolish slavery on the principle of preserving freedom?
You have some pretty ****ed up principles.

let me quote Micheal T Griffith

What's that quote supposed to show?
"I have no real interest in this war and know that I'm contributing to the destruction of the US, but daggummit let's kill yankees!"

Another fine quote for you:

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and when it was obvious that the Confederacy was vastly inferior to the north and would eventually lose, it became a matter of survival to procure European help.

Why then, would the Confederacy attempt to abolish slavery if slavery was the main goal of the war? it doesn't add up.

It adds up perfectly.
Nobody wants to lose power, nevermind the excuse which they used to gain it.
The Souther aristocracy figured out it would be far more damaging for them to lose the war than to abolish slavery.

People who have a problem with that should just go to hell..or new york.

I already am in New York, and I still have problems with needless displays of nothing that only serve to offend the sensitive.

I don't see how that is true at all. The confederate states wanted to secede peacefully, even sending emmisaries to D.C. shortly after secesion to negotiate a peacefull withdrawall, but Lincoln would have none of it. The fact is that the United States initiated the conflict.

See, the thing is, when a country starts breaking apart is one of the times when it's leader should use force.
Different situation in the USSR, all our republics had a constitutionally guaranteed right to secession, and seceded peacefully.
Chechnya was not a republic and did not have such a right, and we all know the story there.
So this entire affair is the equivalent of stealing a guy's car, then complaining that he started it when he comes over kicks your ass, and takes his car back.

It was Federal Armies that tore the south apart, it was Northern attitude of preserving the Union that ultimatley destroyed the south.

A damn good attitude.
And the south being "destroyed" is precisely why it's standards of living are better than in 95% of the world, right?

[Lord Snibb]

The war was not fought to keep slaves. Most people in the South did not own slaves. I highly doubt hundreds of thousands of people were willing to die for somebody else's right to keep slaves. They were fighting because the North was attempting to controll the South through the Federal government. So they rebelled against the Federal government. How or in what way the North was attempting to controll the South was irrevent to them. They did not like being controlled.
The only reason the American colonies are considered good and the south is considered bad is because the colonies won and the south lost. The winner writes history. The North won, so they can say they killed the Southerners because they were racism and had no morals. They southerns can't do anything about it, they lost.
The Confederate generals did not commit any crimes against peace. The actions of the Confederate generals led to the death of hundreds of thousands of soldiers. The actions of the German generals led to the deaths of millions including unarmed men, women, and children. The Confederate generals fought for their people. If their country was going to war, it was cause enough to lead their own people.
Those 4 states were the exeption, not the rule. How do we know? There are only 4. There were more than 8 states in the Confederacy. Therefore, they are the minority.
The south was pretty much destroyed by Sherman. The fact that is was rebuilt and is now in excellent condition does not mean it was not destroyed.
John Brown was a traitor. The Confederates legally (they interrpretted the Constitution as giving states the right to sucede) withdrew from the Union and conducted open warfare in defense of their interrpretted right to do that. John Brown attacked unarmed people at night and chopped them up with greatswords. He seemed to have a thing for medieval weapons. When he tried to arm the slaves, he looked for spears and glaives as well as guns. The Union soldier who fights for the freedom of slaves is a good man, the lunatic who chops of the arms and legs of his victims at night in the name of equality deserves what he gets: the gallows.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Instead of answering you point for point, I think I'll write about the causes of the war from the southern side (Oh NOES! The other side of the story???), as I can't keep trading facts with you without explaining the whole damn war....so here we go.

Complaints in Georgia- Starting in 1816 the state of Georgia regularly lobbied complaints about unfairly high tarrifs and taxations to the federal Government. These complaints continued until the Civil War.

Constitutional Questions- The constitution of the United States has always been a dodgy subject. Interpretation can be a mess. For instance Vice President John C Calhoun (1828) said "if a state felt a federal law extended beyond the Constitutional rights of the government that state had the right to ignore(or "nullify") the law." On the other hand President Andrew Jackson felt that the Federal Government should riegn supreme according to the constitution.

Civil War in 1832? As early as 1832 the seeds of civil war had been planted. The Northerners were the manufacturers of goods, the southerners the growers of crops. Unfortunalty for the North, it was less expensive to purchase foreign made goods in the south than to buy Northern made ones. Andrew Jackson slapped heavy tarriffs on foriegn made goods that could be made in the north and forced southerners to buy from the north for more money than was neccisary. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification (refusing to collect tarrifs) and threatend to secede from the Union Jackson sent federal Troops into Charleston. Congress later revised the act, thus avoiding civil war.

The Panic of 1857s Political Aftermath- The panic of 1857 affected the North, and the North alone. Southern Cotton was responsible for 57% of the United States exports. The Northern abolitionists began to use this to their advantage, using the economic conditions of the north against the south, drawing on the new pool of poverty stricken northerners into their ranks with the ideas that the southerners were profiting while the northerners were suffering. Turning North against South.

Illegal Invasions? So, was the Invasion of the South even legal?
The answer to that question depends on what side you listen to. The North considered the Souths secesion illegal, but the South considered it legal. Then again, once you've seceded, It doesn't matter if it's legal or not, because you are no longer subject to the constitution. When the first shots were fired on Sumter, it was fired as at a force occupying Confederate territory. The United States could not justify this force being in the harbor of charleston as being a protection force of US terretory, as the closest US territory was over 500 miles away. The US would clearly be in the wrong. The invasion of Virginia that followed would also be unjustified legaly.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski31.html read this for further knowledge on this subject.

[lawngnome]

While I do support the displaying of the Confederate flag, I don't do so out of sympathy for the cause of secession. The simple fact that secession couldn't have happened peacefully is enough for me. Ever heard of the Border Wars in Missouri-Kansas? Yeah, didn't matter what Lincoln or Davis did, there was war there inevitably because the people of Missouri were so split as to stay with the Union or not.

But the south can keep their flags, it harms no one in my opinion.