BF2S Forums Should the Confederate flag be banned?

imortal wrote:

The south was not "getting rich," as you put it.  Yes, they made a profit selling cotton to England; if you ran a business, would you not want to make a profit?  The problem was that the northern states controlled congress.  There are more states in the north, due to their small size, so more Senate seats.  There was also a larger population in the north, so more seats in Congress.  That means that the southern states had very little power to direct events in the federal government.

So, when the northern states try to force a law through congress making it illegal to sell cotton to other countries without first offering to sell it inside the country, AT A LOSS, then you can sell anything left over whever you want, with a 50% tarriff to the federal government, what would you have suggested?  The northern states wanted cheap cotton, and could run over the southern states.

Slavery was never a talking point in the Civil War until the north found out they were losing, and needing a rallying point that would make it a 'moral' war. Freeing slaves only became an issue 2 years in.

The really sad point is that slaves were about to become outmoded anyway.  Technology had been coming along that would have allowed the south to farm economically without slaves. Hate to break it to you, but while slaves are cheaper than paid labor, they are not exactly cheap.  The south was already on the cusp of outlawing slavery itself.

Yes, the Civil war was about states rights.  And since the Federal goverment of the north won, the states have seen an increasing amout of power taken by the federal government and a steady loss of states power ever since, right up to modern times.

The South wasn't at the mercy of the North though. They still had power in Congress. There wasn't that much of a difference in Slave/Free states either. The Missouri Compromise, though, had allowed more of the Louisiana Purchase to be free with the line that was a greed upon. Texas, was not admitted to the Union when it first applied either, because it would upset the slave-free balance and it wasn't until California was admitted as free that Texas became a slave state.

Slavery was always a platform. The Republican Party ran candidates on a platform of preventing the spread of slavery and abolitionists had always been hoping that Lincoln would declare slavery illegal. The Emancipation Proclaimation was simply an insult to the rebelling states and since he didn't want to lose the border states, he just basically freed them in the CSA.

Slavery was not on the verge of becoming outlawed. With many Southern states having more slave population than whites, and the rascist opinions of the time, no owners in the South were thinking of outlawing it any time soon.

It may have included states rights, but that was not the major issue, which was the issue that the South had the audacity to secede and tried to get away with it. However, it is not as though the Northern states decided to give everything up. They realized that the federal government is dependant upon national unity and if states become too "grabby" for power over a higher level of government, unity is threatened as opinions diverge. This was the major issue of states rights that led to failure of Articles of Confederation and also made Jefferson Davis having a hard time controlling the states of the CSA since as a newly formed nation like the US when the Articles of Confederation were written, states rights were more important than a federal level of government.

The Bartenders Son wrote:

Should the Confederate flag be banned?


What do you think?

Hell no...  Although flying it over government buildings is probably a bad idea.  *looks at South Carolina*

Do you idiots even know wha ta confedetate flag stands for
the american confederacy means that they wanted didnt want a centeral governmtny
thats it

you can ban it as soon as you show me where you have the right NOT be offended in America.

Should it be banned? Who the fuck cares. It means different things to different people and the fact that we supposedly have freedom of speech in this country supports the right to wave this flag. I hate the mullet wearing, sibling dating, white trash, pick-up driving, ignorant, inbreed rednecks who wear this flag as a banner but have no idea what it stands for. However, they have a right to wave that flag whenever they see fit. It's hypocritical for anyone to say we should ban this flag because it goes against what this country was founded on.

some_random_panda wrote:

wha?

Confederate flag?  A US thing, maybe?

Yea, rednecks fly it.

No it shouldn't, unless you want to change the constitution up first.

No It Shouldn't Be Banned Why Take It Away  I Fly The Stars An Bars  As I Fly The American Flag Proud An High If Your From The South An Not Proud On The Confederate Flag You Should Be Banned From The South

SealXo wrote:

I dont get whats bad about it.


Abe Lincoln actually supported slaves, he jus thad to say he didnt to get more soldiers.

The civil war has nothing do do with slavery

Don't make me go through how slavery had much more than nothing to do with it again.

Blehm98 wrote:

Banning a flag is disrupting freedom of speach.  However, you must fly it below the american flag, as it is technically a foreign flag

in Illinois the red flag is banned
what do you think about that?

Last edited by falafel (2007-01-14 08:54:35)

Reciprocity wrote:

maybe I should clarify my overall opinion.

Fuck white trash Southerners, and fuck their flag.  you dont see germans waving a swastika around celebrating the 'good' parts of the third reich.

I'm starting to think you are under the impression was fought over slave abolishment. If that is the case then you are incorrect. The civil war was fought because the South wanted independence from the rest of the nation (the North). It just so happened that the North won and they did not embrace slavery. Instead they practiced indentured service (just about the same). The rebel flag symbolizes the South's desire to be separate from the North and nothing else. It has no link to a self proclamation of superiority or dominance towards anyone else, just simply their desire to be separate. Over time most people adopted the flag as a symbol of rebelliousness, others tied it to pro-slavery. But what I dont understand is why you are so angered by it. It is nothing more than a flag of people who did not want to be governed by the people they were currently governed by. So in a sense it stands for the same thing as the American flag.

Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2007-01-14 11:02:57)

simply put, to ban the confederate flag is unconstitutional.

jsnipy wrote:

OMG!!! ... the Civil War was NOT ABOUT SLAVERY ... that was just to create passion for the war .. it was about MONEY!!!!!!.

If you think it was about slavery, then you have no understanding of its history beyond 8th grade U.S. History.

Ahem..

DesertFox423 wrote:

imortal wrote:

The south was not "getting rich," as you put it.  Yes, they made a profit selling cotton to England; if you ran a business, would you not want to make a profit?  The problem was that the northern states controlled congress.  There are more states in the north, due to their small size, so more Senate seats.  There was also a larger population in the north, so more seats in Congress.  That means that the southern states had very little power to direct events in the federal government.

So, when the northern states try to force a law through congress making it illegal to sell cotton to other countries without first offering to sell it inside the country, AT A LOSS, then you can sell anything left over whever you want, with a 50% tarriff to the federal government, what would you have suggested?  The northern states wanted cheap cotton, and could run over the southern states.

Slavery was never a talking point in the Civil War until the north found out they were losing, and needing a rallying point that would make it a 'moral' war. Freeing slaves only became an issue 2 years in.

The really sad point is that slaves were about to become outmoded anyway.  Technology had been coming along that would have allowed the south to farm economically without slaves. Hate to break it to you, but while slaves are cheaper than paid labor, they are not exactly cheap.  The south was already on the cusp of outlawing slavery itself.

Yes, the Civil war was about states rights.  And since the Federal goverment of the north won, the states have seen an increasing amout of power taken by the federal government and a steady loss of states power ever since, right up to modern times.

The South wasn't at the mercy of the North though. They still had power in Congress. There wasn't that much of a difference in Slave/Free states either. The Missouri Compromise, though, had allowed more of the Louisiana Purchase to be free with the line that was a greed upon. Texas, was not admitted to the Union when it first applied either, because it would upset the slave-free balance and it wasn't until California was admitted as free that Texas became a slave state.

Slavery was always a platform. The Republican Party ran candidates on a platform of preventing the spread of slavery and abolitionists had always been hoping that Lincoln would declare slavery illegal. The Emancipation Proclaimation was simply an insult to the rebelling states and since he didn't want to lose the border states, he just basically freed them in the CSA.

Slavery was not on the verge of becoming outlawed. With many Southern states having more slave population than whites, and the rascist opinions of the time, no owners in the South were thinking of outlawing it any time soon.

It may have included states rights, but that was not the major issue, which was the issue that the South had the audacity to secede and tried to get away with it. However, it is not as though the Northern states decided to give everything up. They realized that the federal government is dependant upon national unity and if states become too "grabby" for power over a higher level of government, unity is threatened as opinions diverge. This was the major issue of states rights that led to failure of Articles of Confederation and also made Jefferson Davis having a hard time controlling the states of the CSA since as a newly formed nation like the US when the Articles of Confederation were written, states rights were more important than a federal level of government.

DesertFox423 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The American Civil War and WWII are not the same conflict. The ACW is already in the past. Why bury it any further? More folks than "white trash southerners" sympathize at least somewhat with Johnny Reb. States rights was an important issue in the Civil War. Slavery was a convenient political excuse to exercise federal heavy-handedness, much like some of the same bullying attitude that survives to this day.

"So I don't like it when people want to secede and all that."

So, what do you think about eastern Washington wanting to "secede" from western Washington, due to complaints of unfair representation? Or how about a "fictional" scenario. What if the Federal government decides to override a state's protests to deposit nuclear waste, and the state declares secession?

[Bill Lumbergh] Yeah....I'm gonna sorta have to disagree with you there. [/Bill]

States rights wasn't as important as you put it out to be. The Southerners were getting rich off of exporting the cotton, grown by slaves, to Europe and did not want to lose that. If abolitionists got into Congress and freed the slaves, they'd be losing out on bags upon bags of money. The Southern states had be threatening to secede whenever they didn't get there way for some time by 1860. Henry Clay helped to delay the issue tearing the country apart by helping with the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850. The issue of slavery was not an excuse, because it had threatened the unity of the country and Lincoln wouldn't stand for it to happen.

Slavery was the issue that caused the sectional differences in the government that ultimately led to Southern secession.