The Confederate Flag and the US Govermnent

[Bones Brigade]

Some people find this debate worth discussing. Today, the Texas DMV voted not to join 9 other states and produce a license plate depicting the Flag of the Confederacy. The main proponent of the plates was the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Opinions on this matter range from free speech violations to a staunch stance on racist relics of the past.

What do you think?

Story

 

[AMCNUT]

Well, they painted a big one on the roof of the General Lee, so it appears to be legal. And the Dukes of Hazzard was still popular all over, so I suppose at least some of the US finds it socially acceptable to display.

Judging by that precedent, I'd say it comes down to personal morality as to whether or not you are comfortable displaying one. Personally, I don't think I would, but I could understand and respect the choices of those who chose to display one.

 

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

Many see the confederate flag associated with slavery, but I would argue that we don't look at the Union Jack today and think, "that flag represents the oppression of people the world over for hundreds of years during Colonialism".

The beginning of the civil war was more about secession and Lincoln deciding to call the Confederates' bluff than morality over slavery.

 

[nitrorocks]

Just todays society freaks out over the flag even though it means no racism. I don't live in the south, just saying

 

[Northstar]

Just today's society freaks out over the flag even though it means no racism. I don't live in the south, just saying

It's not just today's society though, look at how the swastika, a symbol used since ancient times as a good luck symbol has been viewed since WWII.

I think the reason it's surged in popularity as of late is because of what it symbolizes. Not slavery, but rebellion against the government as that is what the Confederates did on a basic level.

I do think it's a shame though that things like this get covered up, even if it just a license plate it's a part of this countries history and bad or good everyone should be made aware of it's significance and what it stood for(basically that whole "those that don't learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them" thing).

 

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

I do think it's a shame though that things like this get covered up, even if it just a license plate it's a part of this countries history and bad or good everyone should be made aware of it's significance and what it stood for(basically that whole "those that don't learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them" thing).

The German government's attitude of not allowing swastikas in things like video games based during WWII comes to mind.

 

[Bones Brigade]

Some questions I'm interested in seeing opinions on, both for and against:

If we glorify the Confederacy for standing up the United States, can we be considered patriots? Is it acceptable to applaud a people for denouncing the constitution? Can we challenge the constitution today and receive the same applause? If the Sons of Confederate Veterans receive the support of the US government, where does the line get drawn for supporting other groups whose origins started in opposition to the United States?

 

[huskeR32]

IMO, when it comes to this flag, what matters more is the message that other people will get when they see it, not what justification you can come up with to convince yourself it's now a symbol for "states rights" or "rebellion" or whatever. And to a lot of people, when they see this flag, they think of racism.

I think a lot of people still fly this flag for racist reasons, and allowing b.s. claims of alternate symbolism enables their behavior.

 

[Nicksfix]

I see no problems with it at all. People just need to let it go.As Justin said,

It's a piece of American history.

I see a lot a Confederate flags being flown, I see a lot of Confederate license plates on the front of cars throughout my weekly travels. It's no big deal. What, just because someone is displaying this means that they are a southern racist redneck who's living in the past ? I think not !

People, once again, let it go !!!

 

[huskeR32]

I see no problems with it at all. People just need to let it go.As Justin said, I see a lot a Confederate flags being flown, I see a lot of Confederate license plates on the front of cars throughout my weekly travels. It's no big deal. What, just because someone is displaying this means that they are a southern racist redneck who's living in the past ? I think not !

People, once again, let it go !!!

You ever ask any of those people what that flag means to them? I ask that often, and a surprising number of times I've been told bluntly, because I hate ******. So don't try to tell me that flag doesn't have racist implications anymore.

 

[Crispy]

It never really should have. It's just in this day and age, everyone thinks that the Civil War was about slavery, not States Rights, Not Lincoln calling their bluff. That was what it was about. From what I've heard, the North still had a few slaves as well, that doesn't mean that the Union's flag is associated with slavery?

Sure, what some of them did was wrong, but if their your blood line, you will still honor them. It's like saying your great grandfather was a Nazi, so now you hate them. What they did was horribly wrong, but they still deserve respect, just as every veteran. We need to get over the fact that if they do something wrong, they're automatically bad people. I'm sure you have done something wrong in your life, maybe not to the scale of genocide or slavery, but something little like taking that piece of candy from 7/11, or lying to your parents, or beating that one kid up. You still have people that respect you, so show it to the people who made sacrifices, good or bad, during these times.

Don't ask me how that last paragraph came about, it kinda just popped into my mind.

 

[Northstar]

IMO, when it comes to this flag, what matters more is the message that other people will get when they see it, not what justification you can come up with to convince yourself it's now a symbol for "states rights" or "rebellion" or whatever. And to a lot of people, when they see this flag, they think of racism.

I think a lot of people still fly this flag for racist reasons, and allowing b.s. claims of alternate symbolism enables their behavior.

So all those Asian temples with the swastika are filled with neo-nazi's?

Do some people use it to show their own bigotry? Yes.

There are all kinds of symbols that have a negative connotation, does wearing a St. Louis Cardinals or Los Angeles Dodgers hat mean you are a vicious gangster? No. However both are common symbols of bloods and crips.

 

[Danoff]

First of all, I don't think the Texas (or any state) DMV should be producing a confederate license plate. You're using tax dollars to create a symbol that many people find offensive and sanctioning it with government approval. Everyone should feel like their government is representing them and their interests - including people who might justifiably be horrified at the popularity of the confederate flag. To put it simply, if you're black and live in the deep south, it's a special kind of twisted for your government to signal to you that they will use your tax dollars to depict a symbol you might find legitimately terrifying.

That being said, the confederate flag is not about slavery, it's about rebellion. It's also about a southern cultural identity, not rooted in racism, but rooted in a southern way of life. The confederacy is the easiest symbol of the south, even if not necessarily the most accurate one.

Too much is made of the confederate flag... way too much. But it shouldn't be sanctioned and produced by state governments. People are free to put as many confederate flags as they want on their car (and hope the cop that pulls them over isn't black and pissed). They don't need to also have it on the one part of the car that represents a government stamp.

Also, license plates are not about expression. They're about licensing and registering the vehicle. The government shouldn't be getting involved in jazzing them up.

 

[huskeR32]

It never really should have. It's just in this day and age, everyone thinks that the Civil War was about slavery, not States Rights, Not Lincoln calling their bluff. That was what it was about. From what I've heard, the North still had a few slaves as well, that doesn't mean that the Union's flag is associated with slavery?

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, in his famous Cornerstone Speech in March of 1861:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

I think I'll take his word for it over yours.

Also, if you're interested, check out this.

EDIT: For those who won't take the time to read, the document I linked to above is called the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union " and makes it clear that slavery was the central cause of South Carolina's succession.

 

[Bones Brigade]

First of all, I don't think the Texas (or any state) DMV should be producing a confederate license plate. You're using tax dollars to create a symbol that many people find offensive and sanctioning it with government approval. Everyone should feel like their government is representing them and their interests - including people who might justifiably be horrified at the popularity of the confederate flag. To put it simply, if you're black and live in the deep south, it's a special kind of twisted for your government to signal to you that they will use your tax dollars to depict a symbol you might find legitimately terrifying.

That being said, the confederate flag is not about slavery, it's about rebellion. It's also about a southern cultural identity, not rooted in racism, but rooted in a southern way of life. The confederacy is the easiest symbol of the south, even if not necessarily the most accurate one.

Too much is made of the confederate flag... way too much. But it shouldn't be sanctioned and produced by state governments. People are free to put as many confederate flags as they want on their car (and hope the cop that pulls them over isn't black and pissed). They don't need to also have it on the one part of the car that represents a government stamp.

Also, license plates are not about expression. They're about licensing and registering the vehicle. The government shouldn't be getting involved in jazzing them up.

This is mainly what I was curious about. So many people calling this a free speech violation. I'm just like, where is the constitutional mandate that forces a government office to help citizens to express their free speech?

 

[Antonisbob]

I want a confederate flag license plate for when I get a truck..

 

[BobK]

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, in his famous Cornerstone Speech in March of 1861:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

I think I'll take his word for it over yours.

Also, if you're interested, check out this.

EDIT: For those who won't take the time to read, the document I linked to above is called the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union " and makes it clear that slavery was the central cause of South Carolina's succession.

crispychicken49 is right. The Civil War was fought over states' rights (or lack thereof). The Declaration by South Carolina does clearly establish that they seceded over slavery. However the North went to war to forcibly bring them back into the Union, arguing they never had the right to leave; not over slavery itself (which, as noted, was still legal in the Union; in fact the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the Southern states, not the Northern ones which still allowed slavery).

The North could have let the South go their own way and the ACW may never have happened.

 

[Keef]

The North could have let the South go their own way and the ACW may never have happened.

And the North, through its population and industrialization and technology, would probably still make the South look like a third-world nation to this day. Tourism would be a large part of their economy, because it's cold up here.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I don't have any race related issue with the Confederate flag, but I do take issue with hypocrites that wave that flag, and say they are patriotic to America.

But they fail to see that the Confederate flag represented a union of states that disavowed the Constitution, and sought to break up the union.

That doesn't really sound Patriotic.

 

[Bones Brigade]

That's basically how I feel.

But that leads me to a problem. How would I feel if a Tea Party candidate was voted into the White House and we had constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, abortion and even stricter laws on marijuana? If states that allowed these things were angry enough to fight for change...I would fight, too. I suppose that makes me a hypocrite. Though, I would argue fighting for the right to own and abuse another human being is a fair bit different.

Ultimately, it raises this question:

Where is the line (if there is one) that separates patriotism and utilizing constitutional rights for change, and being an enemy of the US? When do we stop condoning actions against the white house and start taking sides?

I don't mean taking sides, like...I disagree with the Tea Party, but actually changing our views on whether or not a group is acting out of love for the country or trying to destroy it? I applaud both OWS and the TP for constitutionally and legally standing up for how they feel the country should be run. I don't think either should be stopped, but is there a point where I would say, enough, this is not good for the country?

When do we decide something is no longer patriotic, but treasonous?

 

[A2K78]

First of all, I don't think the Texas (or any state) DMV should be producing a confederate license plate. You're using tax dollars to create a symbol that many people find offensive and sanctioning it with government approval. Everyone should feel like their government is representing them and their interests - including people who might justifiably be horrified at the popularity of the confederate flag. To put it simply, if you're black and live in the deep south, it's a special kind of twisted for your government to signal to you that they will use your tax dollars to depict a symbol you might find legitimately terrifying.

That being said, the confederate flag is not about slavery, it's about rebellion. It's also about a southern cultural identity, not rooted in racism, but rooted in a southern way of life. The confederacy is the easiest symbol of the south, even if not necessarily the most accurate one.

Too much is made of the confederate flag... way too much. But it shouldn't be sanctioned and produced by state governments. People are free to put as many confederate flags as they want on their car (and hope the cop that pulls them over isn't black and pissed). They don't need to also have it on the one part of the car that represents a government stamp.

Also, license plates are not about expression. They're about licensing and registering the vehicle. The government shouldn't be getting involved in jazzing them up.

Somthing that might suprise you...but I'm black and in no way am I offended by the confederate flag and why? First of all the confederate flag we see so often is technically not the offical flag of the confederacy, because the actual flag is not based on the St. Andrews Cross styling(which is similiar to the scotish flag). Secondly people have a individual right to display whatever symbol they want, even if society deem it disgusting. Overall I was not dumbed down by the hate-filled/pro-hate NAACP(you heard me there) who constantly riles against the flag.

As for taxpayers paying for supporting it, provided that the plate is not some gay pride, religious or supporting some other kind of non-government organization, then government should not be paying for it. Then again taxpayers shouldn't really be paying for anything period, even car plates. In fact I personally believe plates ought to be privatized that way people can display whatever they want.

 

[Bones Brigade]

Privatization of license plates? Thats a new one to LOL at.

You do know what plates are for, right? They're government ID cards for vehicles. The DMV would have to be privatized. You know where money from the DMV goes? To the cities and towns you live in. Everything that the local municipalities applied that money to would have to be scaled back or themselves be privatized. That means roads. Good luck driving on your privatized road system.

But thats a whole different thread completely.

 

[huskeR32]

crispychicken49 is right. The Civil War was fought over states' rights (or lack thereof). The Declaration by South Carolina does clearly establish that they seceded over slavery. However the North went to war to forcibly bring them back into the Union, arguing they never had the right to leave; not over slavery itself (which, as noted, was still legal in the Union; in fact the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the Southern states, not the Northern ones which still allowed slavery).

The North could have let the South go their own way and the ACW may never have happened.

Think of it like WWII: The United States entered the war because of Pearl Harbor, but that's not what the war was about. Pearl Harbor was just the trigger. (I realize the simplification I'm making here, let's not start a whole debate bout WWII).

In the Civil War, the North entered because of the southern secession, but that's not what the war was about. Secession was the trigger, the war was about slavery.

Or, if you'd like, we can trace the conflict back to it's very beginning: The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which drew clear lines between free and slave states/territories.

No less than Thomas Jefferson remarked at the passing of the Compromise: "I considered it at once as the knell of the Union." Jefferson surely wasn't alone in his feeling that the issue of slavery was going to bring the nation to war.

40 years later, and South Carolina plainly declares that slavery was it's reason for seceding.

So we can see that for 40 years, people who were alive at the time, and involved, considered the only reason for conflict within the U.S. to be slavery.

We as a country can gloss it over all we want to soothe our national pride. The people who were there, who took the actions, they know what the fight was for.

 

[Slash]

My bud just got pulled over for having a Confederate license plate two weeks ago...

 

[Bones Brigade]

My bud just got pulled over for having a Confederate license plate two weeks ago...

If this is confirmed by the officer as the reason he was pulled over, than it is most definitely a free speech issue and a violation of his rights. Officer should be suspended.

 

[Camaroyenko]

My bud just got pulled over for having a Confederate license plate two weeks ago...

I'm sorry but that's freaking stupid.

 

[A2K78]

Privatization of license plates? Thats a new one to LOL at.

You do know what plates are for, right? They're government ID cards for vehicles. The DMV would have to be privatized. You know where money from the DMV goes? To the cities and towns you live in. Everything that the local municipalities applied that money to would have to be scaled back or themselves be privatized. That means roads. Good luck driving on your privatized road system.

But thats a whole different thread completely.

I'm all for privatized roads instead of the socialist that you and I have to commute on everyday. Other than that government-controlled roads(or anything) is nothing but a socialist form of monopoly.

In the whenever I hear people say that america is some kind of capitalist paradise I want to pinch myself to know what reality am in.

 

[Northstar]

I'm all for privatized roads instead of the socialist that you and I have to commute on everyday. Other than that government-controlled roads(or anything) is nothing but a socialist form of monopoly.

In the whenever I hear people say that america is some kind of capitalist paradise I want to pinch myself to know what reality am in.

Do you really want to pay $5 to drive 2 blocks to the store?

Not to mention I could just buy a major highway and say you have to pay me $1000 or you can't use it.

Does any country have 100% private roads?

 

[A2K78]

Think of it like WWII: The United States entered the war because of Pearl Harbor, but that's not what the war was about. Pearl Harbor was just the trigger. (I realize the simplification I'm making here, let's not start a whole debate bout WWII).

Its only those who follow mainstream history maintain that the empire of japan provoked america into WWII in truth it was the other way around. If anything I would suggest you read this:

http://rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15040coll2/id/4250/rec/10

http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/574

In the Civil War, the North entered because of the southern secession, but that's not what the war was about. Secession was the trigger, the war was about slavery.

Or, if you'd like, we can trace the conflict back to it's very beginning: The Missouri Compromise of 1820, which drew clear lines between free and slave states/territories.

No less than Thomas Jefferson remarked at the passing of the Compromise: "I considered it at once as the knell of the Union." Jefferson surely wasn't alone in his feeling that the issue of slavery was going to bring the nation to war.

40 years later, and South Carolina plainly declares that slavery was it's reason for seceding.

So we can see that for 40 years, people who were alive at the time, and involved, considered the only reason for conflict within the U.S. to be slavery.

We as a country can gloss it over all we want to soothe our national pride. The people who were there, who took the actions, they know what the fight was for.

again,you're bring up mainstream history as oppose to real historical fact. If you really want to know what really provoked the Civil War, I suggest you read the writings of civil war historian/economist Thomas Di Lorenzo. Overall it was not slavery that provoked the war, but rather the policies of Lincoln


If anything, I would suggest you challenge mainstream history as oppose to wholly accepting it as fact because in many cases its not. Take it from somebody who is history nut like myself.

 

[A2K78]

Do you really want to pay $5 to drive 2 blocks to the store?

Not to mention I could just buy a major highway and say you have to pay me $1000 or you can't use it.

Does any country have 100% private roads?

Its quite intesting that you bring up the cost of using a road, but guess what? the usage of our socialist roads are not free, but is paid for by the government forcing us to pay a fee in the form of taxes, but course if you refuse to pay taxes the government just throws in you jail. In a real free market though that scenerio doesn't happen because a private entity cannot threaten you with jail time for refusng to pay a fee.