5 ms·

They didn't. They chose the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia because of widespread admiration of Lee, who, while no abolitionist, called slavery a p

They didn't. They chose the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia because of widespread admiration of Lee, who, while no abolitionist, called slavery a political and moral evil; who insisted on reconciliation after the war and rejected Lost Cause mythology; and who called upon Southerners to vow loyalty to the United States. There's a reason they chose Lee's flag and not a CSA flag associated directly with a rabid slaver like Jefferson Davis. Indeed, the Army of Northern Virginia flag used to be a symbol of progressive racial integration, at a time when poor white southern migrant workers and poor African Americans found common cause against unfair wages and unsafe working conditions. https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/8gvw5gau7twx-1.jpg https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/8gvw5g... https://images-theconversation-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/images.theconversation.com/files/151989/original/image-20170106-18679-eh7vob.png https://images-theconversation-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/im... History is nuanced. Insisting that your view of what a symbol means should control others is toxic and Orwellian. Our society should be better than that.

timsally 6y ago
It is the flag flown by an armed group that killed soldiers in the United States Army, is it not? [1] This fact gets lost in the debate. No American should fly the flag of any group that targeted and killed members of the United States Armed Forces. [1] https://history.army.mil/books/R&H/R&H-FM.htm https://history.army.mil/books/R&H/R&H-FM.htm, Section VI with Ulysses Simpson Grant as part of the unbroken chain of command.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  They were defending themselves against invasion by the U.S. Army.
  - timsally 6y ago
    How can someone be "defending" themselves when they initiated hostilities? [1] Unilateral succession is illegal. Those flying the confederate flag were not defending themselves, they were committing treason. Our Union is an indestructible one. It was safeguarded then by the U.S. Army who will continue to safeguard it as long as America endures. It feels me with great sadness to think of the blood that was spilled, but at the end of the day Americans who take up arms against the U.S. Army are criminals and traitors. No American should fly the flag of those who have killed our soldiers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
    - marcusverus 6y ago
      > Following the declaration of secession by South Carolina on December 20, 1860, its authorities demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, Major Robert Anderson of the U.S. Army surreptitiously moved his small command from the vulnerable Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress built on an island controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor. An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area except for Fort Sumter. To summarize: 1) South Carolina secedes. 2) South Carolina demands the Union remove its troops from their soil. 3) The Union refuses, garrisons a fortress on foreign soil, and attempts to resupply said garrison. 4) South Carolina offers an ultimatum--remove your soldiers or we will attack. 5) The union refuses to remove their troops from foreign soil. 6) South Carolina's militia attacks Ft. Sumter. South Carolina's militia fired the first shots, but I'm not sure how you can say that they 'Initiated hostilities'. Occupying foreign soil has always been considered an act of war. History is written by the victors, I suppose.
      - timsally 6y ago
        Your entire premise is built on a faulty foundation-- step 1 in your summary is an illegal act and treason. At the time of succession they were firmly aware the United States considered it as such. After the war, Texas v. White is the SCOTUS case that enshrined this position: unilateral secession is illegal. After seceding those who were illegally occupying the land were the secessionists themselves. You cannot unilaterally seceded from the Union. Hundreds of thousands of my countrymen died in the Civil War to establish this principle; it is the law of the land and to imply otherwise is to dishonor their sacrifice. No unilateral secession, period. That is what 350,000+ U.S. military personnel died for. If you believe it was legal for those folks to secede I suggest you renounce your U.S. citizenship and leave.

timsally 6y ago

It is the flag flown by an armed group that killed soldiers in the United States Army, is it not? [1] This fact gets lost in the debate. No American should fly the flag of any group that targeted and killed members of the United States Armed Forces. [1] https://history.army.mil/books/R&H/R&H-FM.htm https://history.army.mil/books/R&H/R&H-FM.htm, Section VI with Ulysses Simpson Grant as part of the unbroken chain of command.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SamReidHughes 6y ago
They were defending themselves against invasion by the U.S. Army.
- timsally 6y ago
  How can someone be "defending" themselves when they initiated hostilities? [1] Unilateral succession is illegal. Those flying the confederate flag were not defending themselves, they were committing treason. Our Union is an indestructible one. It was safeguarded then by the U.S. Army who will continue to safeguard it as long as America endures. It feels me with great sadness to think of the blood that was spilled, but at the end of the day Americans who take up arms against the U.S. Army are criminals and traitors. No American should fly the flag of those who have killed our soldiers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter
  - marcusverus 6y ago
    > Following the declaration of secession by South Carolina on December 20, 1860, its authorities demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, Major Robert Anderson of the U.S. Army surreptitiously moved his small command from the vulnerable Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress built on an island controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor. An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area except for Fort Sumter. To summarize: 1) South Carolina secedes. 2) South Carolina demands the Union remove its troops from their soil. 3) The Union refuses, garrisons a fortress on foreign soil, and attempts to resupply said garrison. 4) South Carolina offers an ultimatum--remove your soldiers or we will attack. 5) The union refuses to remove their troops from foreign soil. 6) South Carolina's militia attacks Ft. Sumter. South Carolina's militia fired the first shots, but I'm not sure how you can say that they 'Initiated hostilities'. Occupying foreign soil has always been considered an act of war. History is written by the victors, I suppose.
    - timsally 6y ago
      Your entire premise is built on a faulty foundation-- step 1 in your summary is an illegal act and treason. At the time of succession they were firmly aware the United States considered it as such. After the war, Texas v. White is the SCOTUS case that enshrined this position: unilateral secession is illegal. After seceding those who were illegally occupying the land were the secessionists themselves. You cannot unilaterally seceded from the Union. Hundreds of thousands of my countrymen died in the Civil War to establish this principle; it is the law of the land and to imply otherwise is to dishonor their sacrifice. No unilateral secession, period. That is what 350,000+ U.S. military personnel died for. If you believe it was legal for those folks to secede I suggest you renounce your U.S. citizenship and leave.