Confederate Flag?

So, I seen this guy post a video on Vine with the Confederate Flag and in the video he said "I miss the good ole days." The video was titled "Southern Pride." I'm not the type of person to quickly yell racist but after watching the video I feel some type of way. Am I just being paranoid or am I justified to feel some type of way?

Is it racist for people to have the confederate flag?

When I see people with the confederate flag, I automatically think they support what it stood for back then.

Is it just a flag or does it have meaning?

People will argue its not racist and having southern pride is not racist either, and maybe that's true. Still though, I was/am born and raised in the south and I hate that flag and it makes me feel some type of way too lol so I wouldn't worry about it.

I think @lunacyde could actually provide a deep well of information on this subject.

Its not hate its pride.

Heck the civil war wasn't even fought over slavery till Lincoln brought it up. Till then it was about state rights. Lincoln actually wasn't going to even bother with slavery till the emancipation proclamation and that was only done to keep the south from getting allies from England and France since they were about to come help.

@shadowchaos: Showing pride for states that technically don't belong to us. Hmmm.

*sips tea*

Also what do you think they meant by "I miss the good ole days?"

@glemerald924: well honestly he could be talking about back when states had more power unlike now where the federal government controls everything.

Also I wasn't really addressing the video. I was more addressing the fact the rebel flag isn't racist.

It is the flag of traitors.

It's the flag of losers.

Just playing devils advocate here, but if the confederate flag is a traitors' flag then isn't the U S flag the flag of traitors as well? I mean, American revolutionaries did technically do to the british crown what the confederates tried to do to the American Union.

@shadowchaos: the war was about slavery.

@bluejay4: actually it wasn't. If the war had ended before the emancipation proclamation then slavery wouldn't have ended. Read up on your history. Lincoln actually wasn't going to end slavery till the war. Plus there were black soldiers on both sides.

99.9% of the people I've seen wear/support that flag have some "racist" tendencies......

False. When the states first seceded Lincoln even offered the Corwin Amendment that would forever protect the institution of slavery. He said himself he is going to war to preserve the Union. Even when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation (which basically was used as a war tactic to prevent other countries backing the South) it didnt free ONE slave in Union controlled states where slavery was legal.

Halfway through the war Lincoln turned the focus of the war to ending slavery basically to keep other countries from backing the South. Because the other countries, such as France and England, had already abolished slavery and couldn't and wouldn't back the side that was supposedly fighting to keep slavery.

It's the flag of the common man who left their homes and families to defend their homes from what they saw as an invading force. Which was exactly what the Union army was doing. That's why Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, etc. didn't secede until Lincoln called forth an army to take the South back by force.

@biteme_fanboy: not arguing with a confederate sympathizer. Seriously pick up a text book.

@glemerald924:

Forget racism for a moment.

What was the average white person's life like under the confederacy? It wasn't much different than you see in the poorest areas of the south now. Abject poverty, some of the worst education available. Constantly living in a system that only abuses you slightly less than it does black people, while making sure you fear them taking what little crumbs you get. The southern aristocracy was less than one percent of the population, the middle class was basically nonexistant and only thrived in the port towns. Everywhere in the confederacy the majority of whites were sharecroppers or tenant farmers whose rights barely exceeded those of slaves. Many even supported the union but were pressed into service against it.

The good old days were only good for a very few. the state's rights argument was actually coined by Thomas Jefferson to defend slavery explicity in the state of Virginia. Like many of Jefferson's policies he conveniently ignored personal liberty when it got in the way of his privilege.

@biteme_fanboy: That's a largely romanticized view of the Confederates. The Confederates were committing treason; the Northern Republicans rightfully pointed out that a state, once joined the Union, had no constitutional method of unilaterally seceding - a constitutional amendment was required to leave --- what the Southern states did was an illegal rebellion, thus they were appropriately dealt with via constitutional force.

Where were you taught all of this?

Slavery was the economic underpinning of the South.

@bluejay4: you do realize that slavery was actually pretty rare too?

Most people didn't even own a single slave. The ones that did may have had one or maybe three at the most. The common depiction of slavery with the hundreds of slaves on plantations were very very rates as having that many was not profitable. Plus the north also had slaves and continued to have them till the 13th amendment which was after the civil war.

Plus most southerners did not fight to support slavery but to support their state.

Take Robert E. Lee for example, he was a union general before the war and was offered the job of commanding the entire army. He did not support slavery but turned down the job because he could not fight against Virginia.

How about you learn some history.

Kinda related to this.....went to the local bar in my town (some of you know i live in the former KKK capital of Cali) and saw a guy with "White Pride" tattooed on his back and a bunch of guys with swastikas on their necks, but anyways it either means southern pride (not racist) or yes something racist

Trust me, my home is filled with 30+ books on the Civil War, and I've read them plenty of times. I don't base my knowledge of the Civil War from a week of talking about it in high school. I've laid out proof that the war wasn't started to end slavery. Corwin Amendment, plus plenty of quotes from Lincoln himself, and Tennessee, Arkansas, Virginia, etc not seceding until Lincoln calls for war on the South. Plenty of proof. No where is it said by Lincoln or anyone that they are starting war to go free the slaves. He clearly said the wars purpose was to uphold the Union.

I'm not saying what Lincoln did was wrong. He wanted to keep the country together. The South honestly thought secession was legal. But the Confederate Battle Flag was created just for that, as a battle flag for the common soldier. It wasn't created to show that white people are superior to blacks or that blacks should always be slaves. It's highly based off the Scottish flag and bears the Cross of St. Andrews.

@shadowchaos: States succeeded overy slavery, it was their way of life. It may have been rare (I believe it was 1/4 southerners owned slaves) but it still was an issue. If slavery didn't exist the Civil War would've never happened.

That doesn't really matter - most white Southerners, even the working class supported slavery --- the black slaves were the lowest of the low; with the white working class ranked ahead, the system of white supremacy was threatened by freed slaves. They (white working class Southerners) were still able to exert more power and influence over a black slave. Freed slaves presented a threat to their already low-paying jobs.

@frozen: @bluejay4:actually slavery may have been one of the reasons but it wasn't the main reason. There were other events that led to the civil war that played a much bigger role. One being the election of Lincoln. Lincoln won without a single southern vote in the electoral college.

also you are missing the main point of this thread. The flag itself is not racist. That's judging all those with southern pride as racist just because of a few bad eggs.

"1. Am I just being paranoid or am I justified to feel some type of way?"

I wore a shirt with a confederate flag from about age 17-21. I never thought for a second that it might have racial implications until several years after I became to chubby to wear it.

Vine offers little chance for context. He might or might not have had racist intentions.

2. Is it racist for people to have the confederate flag?

Of course not. It's just a flag, and there are many reasons someone might have one other than racist intent.

3. Is it just a flag or does it have meaning?

All symbols have meaning. Regarding the Confederate flag, it is highly associated with slavery which is the reason I generally would not wear one today, but it also stood for independence and the South, and it's worth finding out someone's intent before crying racist.

Though basically everything you said is true, it is inarguable that the States which originally seceded were motivated in large part by a fear of losing slavery. It was not the only issue. You can make a case that it was not the biggest issue, but it certainly was an issue. Slavery was so important to the Confederacy that they put it in their new Constitution.

The Constitution does not mention anything about secession one way or another. It neither specifies that states can leave the union nor forbids it. Consequently, most discussions become philosophical arguments about what the Founders intended.

Personally, I think it's pretty obvious that a union freely joined could be freely left. It also seems obvious that the Founders who tried desperately to find a peaceful way to leave Great Britain would not create a new form of government which would require violence to separate, but I'll admit there is a good case to be made on the opposite side of this argument.

@batwatch:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reserved-power/

The state's rights argument ignores the fact that the constitution is intentionally ambiguous about rights not specifically enumerated being reserved for the states OR the people. This was meant to give the judiciary and the congress the responsibility of dealing with future issues. Jefferson who was a major proponent of individual liberty constantly agues against it any time it becomes inconvenient for his political goals. He was also a proponent of small government, yet made the largest executive decision to indebt the US for most of our early history.

My point is that the south was always politically dubious in nature. Jefferson is an example of that. The argument to empower states rights at the expense of the individual was at the heart of slavery and most of southern history. It didn't matter if it was white people or black people. Jefferson coined the argument for the purpose of allowing states to victimize citizens, and thus it has ever been used. The whole narrative of state's rights being about freedom is a farce, and fundamentally unamerican at its core.

As for secession, the south was allowed to secede, but just like today they don't owe the federal government anything. All US Military holdings in the south were lawfully purchased and built properties and of the US government, but the confederacy wanted to steal them instead of pay for them. The union was rather kind on this point for some time, until some drunken fools in Charleston decided they should attack Fort Sumter. This is when the war began, not with Northern aggression, but with a state sponsored attempt to steal government property.

Southern Pride as it relates to the civil war is built on deceit. I say this as a former resident of the south and having descended partially from the very people who crafted those lies.

That was my official high school flag. No joke. The school was even suit. So now they hide it

@russellmania77: lol.. whoa.. I'm guessing you grew up in the South.. Where at?

@namasthetu:

"The state's rights argument ignores the fact that the constitution is intentionally ambiguous about rights not specifically enumerated being reserved for the states OR the people. This was meant to give the judiciary and the congress the responsibility of dealing with future issues."

No, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make it crystal clear that any rights not given to the federal government by the enumerated powers are retained by the states and citizens. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also made this point beyond refutation. There is no ambiguity in the Constitution.

"Jefferson who was a major proponent of individual liberty constantly agues against it any time it becomes inconvenient for his political goals. He was also a proponent of small government, yet made the largest executive decision to indebt the US for most of our early history."

I understand that, but you said Jefferson invented the states' rights argument to defend slavery. You have not given anything to justify that position.

"My point is that the south was always politically dubious in nature. Jefferson is an example of that."

The South has always been dubious? Jefferson is an example of a dubious South? What does this even mean?

"The argument to empower states rights at the expense of the individual was at the heart of slavery and most of southern history. It didn't matter if it was white people or black people. Jefferson coined the argument for the purpose of allowing states to victimize citizens, and thus it has ever been used. The whole narrative of state's rights being about freedom is a farce, and fundamentally unamerican at its core."

You again assert that Jefferson coined the idea of states rights (which again, was made explicit in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) without offering any historical evidence to back up your statement. In what writing did Jefferson invent states rights to justify slavery?

States rights is simply the acknowledgment that the federal government has a limited realm of authority. The federal government cannot control every aspect of people's lives. Some rights are kept by the states and some by the individual citizens.

States rights did give states the ability to decide whether or not slavery was legal in their territory, but this is no more a states rights issue than school funding, local road construction, zoning laws and state tax exemptions. States rights simply means the states have the rights to decide certain matters for themselves.

"As for secession, the south was allowed to secede, but just like today they don't owe the federal government anything. All US Military holdings in the south were lawfully purchased and built properties and of the US government, but the confederacy wanted to steal them instead of pay for them. The union was rather kind on this point for some time, until some drunken fools in Charleston decided they should attack Fort Sumter. This is when the war began, not with Northern aggression, but with a state sponsored attempt to steal government property."

You may believe that states could secede, but Lincoln did not, and it was for this reason that he was sending reinforcements to Fort Sumter through independent Southern territory. This move is what made the Southerners decide to attack Fort Sumter.

I don't have a strong opinion on who was wrong in this particular incident. It seems to me that both Lincoln and the Confederacy escalated things unnecessarily. Looking back, I've always wished we could have found a peaceful way to avoid this conflict, but given the politics at the time, I don't know what could have prevented it.

"Southern Pride as it relates to the civil war is built on deceit. I say this as a former resident of the south and having descended partially from the very people who crafted those lies."

I have no idea what you mean.

It's not about racism.

It that flag is about racism, then so should most of the Western nations' flags, considering they supported slavery at one stage or another.

To me, it's like the Swastika. While it's origins isn't racist, it was used primariy by a hate spreading group and that's what it's mainy identified as now. So, I sure as hell wouldn't sport either.

Agreed and I want nothing to do with that kind of "pride". Only other thing I have to say regarding this whole topic is its sad to see a modern form of the Dunning School of thought going on in some of the comments. That is what sucks about history, for something that is driven by dates, there is nothing concrete about it.

Regardless of what it means now or then, if you fly that flag, you should have the common sense to know people might look at you weird.

@frozen said:

It's my understanding that the south's stance, withr egard to secession, was that since they came into the union of their own free will, then they ought to be able to leave it of their own free will. You could argue that the south took a loose constructionist view of the constitution but I don't think it can rightly be called illegal. I do agree that the war was about state's rights--the right of the states to keep and maintain slavery as a working part of society.

Wouldn't it be funny if a politician flew the Swastika in their front because of pride and tradition?

@sog7dc: @batwatch:

I'm gonna boil it down into a few points before this gets too out of hand:

1. States' rights is ambiguous in the tenth amendment. While there is an explicit statement limiting federal authority, states and the people are given an ambiguous claim to everything else. There are no explicit statements about even what kinds of rights fall to each. Nontheless because it is stated within the constitution, it is a constitutional matter. Thus the states must make their case before the Supreme Court (or any lesser court deemed appropriate) when claiming anything which the federal government challenges. The States do not have unlimited authority to do as they please.

2. Slavery was clearly a federal issue under the commerce clause and the naturalization clause of Article 1. It either involved the appropriation of foreign nationals through commerce or piracy or the trade of naturalized US citizens. The states therefore has no right at any point to make any decision without the lawful permission of the federal government.

3. Jefferson has always been considered the author of states' rights as the South/Confederacy used it. He argued this point most vehemently during his debates with Hamilton in the 1790s. During this time he cemented his pro-slavery politics, despite his initial and sometimes later occasional idealistic railing against it. In his notes on Virginia he establishes the "scientific view of negro inferiority" which is cemented later with the states' rights doctrine thatthe Jeffersonian Democrats used to justify slavery in particular. Jefferson lived through the early years of this and not only used this argument himself for slavery, but as he grew older endorsed every usage of states' rights for this purpose. During this time it is most commonly known as nullification doctrine which was ruled unlawful repeatedly as it bypasses the authority of the supreme court to decide constitutional issues. While its first legal usage was the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, it was already about a decade old concept Jefferson had been flinging about to no avail. While my charge that Jefferson explicitly coined the doctrine to victimize people may be a bit embellished, it is very obvious throughout his career that any time the federal government tried to remove any shred of power from wealthy landowners in favor of individual rights, he pulled out states' rights as if there was no question that the right may belong to individuals AND needed to be settled in federal court. One cannot shield themselves in the constitution and violate it at the same time, though this is often a tactic of modern states' rights groups who want federal money but then say the feds can't require anything for that money, as if they were entitled to it. And why shouldn't they think that way since the same states where you hear most of this rhetoric are also the ones who contribute the least while taking the most (SC I'm looking at you). Voting rights has always been a big one too. It is a clearly defined individual right in the constitution and thus the federal government can make laws ensuring that right be protected, but that doesn't stop states' rights advocates from claiming its not a federal issue. On these matters they lose, persistently, but still maintain a false belief in their supremacy.

4. As for the Civil War. South Carolina chose to leave the union rather publicly due to Lincoln's election. Lincoln tried to appeal to the other states that followed to rejoin in his inaugural address. For months following the secession Union forces avoided conflict and Lincoln attempted a dialogue, if one that could be a bit stern about his belief that the secession was an insurrection. That boat headed for Fort Sumter was a supply ship and had virtually no troops on it, certainly not enough to combat the massive force occupying Fort Moultrie on the mainland. The Union never fired unless fired upon for some time after the start of the war and despite the Confederacy's attempt to brand it "The War of Northern Aggression," The Confederacy initiated the vast majority of assaults for a long time. The North could hardly be an aggressor when it knew it was vastly outnumbered at the time and generally hadn't fortified itself against an assault. The South/Confederacy disobeyed the law and then began an insurrection which was not forcefully repelled for some time partially because of the North's desire for a peaceful solution.

5. The Confederacy is a joke. They were the fourth richest nation (legal or not) in the world at the time. They were broke within four years. This is due to their complete incompetence in foreign relations and their own mythological belief that they were able to maintain an export economy without properly investing in a navy. Their internal trade infrastructure was practically nonexistent and they had virtually no middle class anyway. They simply didn't produce much of anything. So besides being completely in the wrong legally and morally, they were incompetent. The rich pressed the poor into service for a system that did not serve them to fight a war that shouldn't have been. There isn't anything to be proud of here. For all the talk of Robert E. Lee's honor, he was still a traitor at the end of the day serving the system he wanted to rather than the one he swore an oath to uphold. I will drink to the poor people who had to endure this tragedy, and I will drink to many things that individual southerners hold dear, but that is all.

Okay that was longer than intended but these are not simple issues.

The answer is yes. That flag is deeply rooted in southern racism.

Wow. I'm learning so much in this thread. I pretty much blocked out all my knowledge on American history once I left high school. I haven't had much use for it since then.

Pretty much this. Anyone who says some nonsense like it wasn't about slavery is an idiot or ignorant.

@biteme_fanboy: Austin tx

I think it undeniably has racist connotations for many people. However as with most symbols it is perceived to signify different things to different people. Do I think that a lot of people use that flag as a symbol of agreement with racist principles? Yes. Do I think the flag itself is racist? No. Do I think we should allow its use as a symbol? Yes, very much. The Freedom of Speech is one of our most important liberties.

Also it's not the actual flag of the Confederacy, but instead the battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia which was under Robert E. Lee's command during the war. The flag was adopted into the corner of later official Confederate flags, but the flag itself was never the official flag of the Confederacy. Sadly most "Confederate Pride" types don't even know their own history or symbols. It's hilarious what a point of ignorance many of these people speak from.

http://www.comicvine.com/forums/off-topic-5/what-do-you-think-about-the-confederate-flag-559817/

@glemerald924: Confederates were not for human slavery (4 everyone) so i would say no. Now they might be Xenophobes/Ethnicist.

Pilasy:La Voix d'un homme

I mean, the Southern secession literally began out of the fear that slavery would be abolished under Lincoln's presidency. That being said, there is plenty of racist context behind the Confederate flag.

But here is an alternate viewpoint- some time before the Civil War, the etire Union was just as prejudiced as the Confederate states would have been. Heck, one educated black fellow said that racism was worse in the North! So by gathering the same logic, couldn't we say that our ol' red, white, and blue flag is just as racist as the Confederate one?

The ironic part about this is that Lee himself opposed slavery.

Should you be offended ? No unless you see the man being racist.

One person who wears it may be racist while another could have gotten it at a Kanye concert it's all on a person by person basis

Lee opposed secession vehemently, as did his wife. However, when his home state seceded from the Union, he had no choice (in his mind) but to resign and join the Virginian State Forces.

It's just a damned flag.

Mm-hmm. I know.

He opposed both secession and slavery, but he was furiously loyal to Virginia.

I was just telling a friend that if Virginia hadn't seceded, it is highly likely that the Civil War would have been nothing but a tiny footnote in our history because Lee would have been in command for the Union. Considering how well he did with so little that the Confederacy had, against such overwhelming forces and resources of the Union, he would have steamrolled the Confederacy were he in command of a Union force.

@namasthetu:

"I'm gonna boil it down into a few points before this gets too out of hand:

"1. States' rights is ambiguous in the tenth amendment. While there is an explicit statement limiting federal authority, states and the people are given an ambiguous claim to everything else."

This is flatly untrue. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments explicitly say that any rights not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are retained by the states and people. There is zero ambiguity.

"There are no explicit statements about even what kinds of rights fall to each."

Yes there is. The federal government gets the rights specified in the Constitution, and the states and people get everything else. The powers of the federal government are specified in Article 1, Section 8.

"Nontheless because it is stated within the constitution, it is a constitutional matter. Thus the states must make their case before the Supreme Court (or any lesser court deemed appropriate) when claiming anything which the federal government challenges."

If the federal government has stepped beyond the bounds of the Constitution, then the Constitution holds no authority over the states. Are we supposed to accept the premise that the federal government can ignore the provisions of the Constitution but the States must remain bound to the federal government's judgment of it's own actions? If the federal government decided they were just going to ignore the Thirteenth Amendment, the states would be obligated to follow the federal government and allow slavery? This is nonsense. The violation of a contract, like the Constitution, frees both parties to find arrangements more suitable to them.

"The States do not have unlimited authority to do as they please."

Constitutionally speaking, they have the right to do anything the citizens authorize them to do as long as it doesn't interfere with the federal government's powers as specified by Article 1, Section 8.

"2. Slavery was clearly a federal issue under the commerce clause and the naturalization clause of Article 1. It either involved the appropriation of foreign nationals through commerce or piracy or the trade of naturalized US citizens. The states therefore has no right at any point to make any decision without the lawful permission of the federal government."

Nonsense. The commerce clause was meant to regulate interstate trade and international trade. It was not blanket permission to regulate everything in a state that could be traded. This was an abominable reinterpretation made in the early Progressive era designed to be a massive power grab for the federal government. Even if you wrongly believe that interpretation to be justified, that didn't come until seventy years after the Civil War. The importation of slaves from foreign lands, on the other hand, definitively is a federal issue which is why is was banned in 1807, but that didn't affect slavery already existing in states. I suppose the federal government could have made naturalization laws that affected slavery, but they didn't.

"3. Jefferson has always been considered the author of states' rights as the South/Confederacy used it. He argued this point most vehemently during his debates with Hamilton in the 1790s. During this time he cemented his pro-slavery politics, despite his initial and sometimes later occasional idealistic railing against it."

You might be right on Jefferson arguing for the states rights of slavery. From my understanding, Jefferson would have been completely correct if he was arguing that slavery was Constitutionally allowed at the time and relegated to the states to decide. Nonetheless, can you give me a specific source so I can verify what you say? Saying it was in the Jefferson/Hamilton debates isn't very useful since they argued quite a bit.

"In his notes on Virginia he establishes the "scientific view of negro inferiority" which is cemented later with the states' rights doctrine thatthe Jeffersonian Democrats used to justify slavery in particular."

Sure, Jefferson thought blacks were inferior. That was the scientific consensus of the day. Lincoln had pretty racist views himself by modern standards. I am unaware if the Jeffersonians used this line of thinking to justify slavery, but it would not be surprising.

"Jefferson lived through the early years of this and not only used this argument himself for slavery, but as he grew older endorsed every usage of states' rights for this purpose."

Source? Again, I haven't seen your evidence. Also, you are not drawing a distinction between arguing for the rights of states to decide slavery and arguing for slavery. I believe states have the right to decide the legality of meth, but that does reveal whether I oppose or support the legalization of meth.

"During this time it is most commonly known as nullification doctrine which was ruled unlawful repeatedly as it bypasses the authority of the supreme court to decide constitutional issues. While its first legal usage was the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, it was already about a decade old concept Jefferson had been flinging about to no avail."

First, the nullification doctrine was meant to nullify laws passed by John Adams that could be used to shut down the media and deport citizens. Jefferson's work with nullification had nothing to do with slavery.

Second, Jefferson support of the nullification movement was done in collaboration with James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. I think Madison had a pretty good idea what the Constitution allowed.

Third, I don't know all the details of this crisis, but I do know nullification laws were meant to combat unconstitutional authority exercised by the federal government. If people must comply to every unconstitutional whim of the federal government, then what use is the Constitution?

"While my charge that Jefferson explicitly coined the doctrine to victimize people may be a bit embellished,"

If by embellished, you mean completely wrong, then yes, it was embellished.

"it is very obvious throughout his career that any time the federal government tried to remove any shred of power from wealthy landowners in favor of individual rights, he pulled out states' rights as if there was no question that the right may belong to individuals AND needed to be settled in federal court."

The class warfare angle is a red herring. The issue is whether the federal government had jurisdiction. If the issue was under the purview of Article 1, Section 8, the feds had purview. If it wasn't, they didn't. If you feel Jefferson wrongly applied the Constitution to defend the citizenry, you'll need to provide specific examples.

"One cannot shield themselves in the constitution and violate it at the same time, though this is often a tactic of modern states' rights groups who want federal money but then say the feds can't require anything for that money, as if they were entitled to it."

Aren't you making the case that the federal government can violate the provisions of the Constitution yet the states must remain Constitutionally bound to follow the federal government's ruling on their own actions. How is that different?

"And why shouldn't they think that way since the same states where you hear most of this rhetoric are also the ones who contribute the least while taking the most (SC I'm looking at you)"

You seem to have some genuine hostility on this issue. Did a states rights advocate steal your girlfriend or something?

"Voting rights has always been a big one too. It is a clearly defined individual right in the constitution and thus the federal government can make laws ensuring that right be protected, but that doesn't stop states' rights advocates from claiming its not a federal issue. On these matters they lose, persistently, but still maintain a false belief in their supremacy."

Constitutional amendments specify that you cannot deny the right to vote to anyone based on race, sex or age if eighteen or older. It also says you cannot be forced to pay a poll tax. Regarding all those things, the federal government does have power to regulate, but that does not mean they have the right to regulate every aspect of voting.

"4. As for the Civil War. South Carolina chose to leave the union rather publicly due to Lincoln's election. Lincoln tried to appeal to the other states that followed to rejoin in his inaugural address. For months following the secession Union forces avoided conflict and Lincoln attempted a dialogue, if one that could be a bit stern about his belief that the secession was an insurrection. That boat headed for Fort Sumter was a supply ship and had virtually no troops on it, certainly not enough to combat the massive force occupying Fort Moultrie on the mainland. The Union never fired unless fired upon for some time after the start of the war and despite the Confederacy's attempt to brand it "The War of Northern Aggression,""

I don't disagree with any of that.

"The Confederacy initiated the vast majority of assaults for a long time. The North could hardly be an aggressor when it knew it was vastly outnumbered at the time and generally hadn't fortified itself against an assault."

I don't know enough to judge whether this is correct.

"The South/Confederacy disobeyed the law and then began an insurrection which was not forcefully repelled for some time partially because of the North's desire for a peaceful solution."

Which law did they break?

"5. The Confederacy is a joke. They were the fourth richest nation (legal or not) in the world at the time. They were broke within four years. This is due to their complete incompetence in foreign relations and their own mythological belief that they were able to maintain an export economy without properly investing in a navy. Their internal trade infrastructure was practically nonexistent and they had virtually no middle class anyway."

Jefferson Davis was definitely not a good chief executive. That being said, the North expected a quick war, yet the war drug out for quite a while. Lee also came fairly close to taking the capital, so saying the South was completely incompetent is not justified.

"They simply didn't produce much of anything."

They produced a lot of crops, but they couldn't match in manufacturing. Equal infrastructure probably would have spelled victory for the South.

"So besides being completely in the wrong legally and morally, they were incompetent."

Obviously the South was wrong about slavery, but the North was wrong in refusing to let the South leave peacefully, and I don't care for Lincoln's suspension of Constitutional rights.

"The rich pressed the poor into service for a system that did not serve them to fight a war that shouldn't have been."

That could be said of almost every army including the North in the Civil War.

"There isn't anything to be proud of here."

I suppose you can find nobility in just about anything if you look hard enough, but I agree that as a whole, the Civil War was a blight on the nation.

"For all the talk of Robert E. Lee's honor, he was still a traitor at the end of the day serving the system he wanted to rather than the one he swore an oath to uphold."

Didn't Lee also take an oath to his state? I understand his perspective and bear him no ill will.

Whether you are a traitor or freedom fighter is shaped largely by whether you won the war. George Washington took an oath to England, yet few think of him as a traitor.

"I will drink to the poor people who had to endure this tragedy, and I will drink to many things that individual southerners hold dear, but that is all."

(shrugs) It's just another bad war, in my view. I don't see a good side in the conflict which is how I feel about most wars. There are better and worse, but rarely is it a matter of good vs. evil.

"Okay that was longer than intended but these are not simple issues."

Nobody said they were simple.