There are Nazi like people in the US, do we classify the US as strictly Nazi? No.


Read what I wrote bud, the confederates where AGAINST slavery. The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Slavery wasnt abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves. No, they didn't force states to get rid of it, however they cut ties to get more slaves.

If the Union was so anti slavery, why did the use slaves to fight their war? Furthermore, why did they pay their slaves almost HALF as much as the Confederates. Do not reply unless you have an answer to this as that's the bottom line. What you learn in schools is B.S. you need to do your own research, just like on 9/11, but that's another topic.

002 wrote

Click to View Content

There are Nazi like people in the US, do we classify the US as strictly Nazi? No.


Read what I wrote bud, the confederates where AGAINST slavery. The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Slavery wasnt abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves. No, they didn't force states to get rid of it, however they cut ties to get more slaves.

If the Union was so anti slavery, why did the use slaves to fight their war? Furthermore, why did they pay their slaves almost HALF as much as the Confederates. Do not reply unless you have an answer to this as that's the bottom line. What you learn in schools is B.S. you need to do your own research, just like on 9/11, but that's another topic.

There are Nazi like people in the US, do we classify the US as strictly Nazi? No.

You don't seriously think that's a good analogy do you? If the US was at war and part of its official reason for going to war was to kill off all of the Jews, then sure, that Nazi would be representing what the US wanted. But that's not your analogy.

Read what I wrote bud, the confederates where AGAINST slavery. The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Slavery wasnt abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves. No, they didn't force states to get rid of it, however they cut ties to get more slaves.

OK, so they banned the overseas slave trade, that still leaves slave trading within the US open, and they permitted confederate states to abolish slavery if they wanted to, which they didn't. You're right, they were so anti-slavery, there was nothing more they could have done.

You're pointing out the flaws in the Union's politics for abolishing slavery, like not pushing it far enough, but you're letting the confederate states have a free pass.

If the Union was so anti slavery, why did the use slaves to fight their war?

Because of the views of the four border states that were pro-union, but also pro-slavery.
Lincoln decided that it was best to stick it out in the short term so that he could succeed in the long term. If he had simply freed all of the slaves instantly, those states would have seceded and he might have lost the war. So he didn't, and he used their slaves as fighters only when the army's numbers dwindled to levels where it was needed. I really don't blame him for this, slavery was happening one way or another, at least he was trying to end it.

Besides, Lincoln obviously didn't view them as expendable assets because he implemented General Order 233

Furthermore, why did they pay their slaves almost HALF as much as the Confederates.

Lincoln had to placate the previously mentioned states' prejudices.

But let's talk about the confederate army. Why didn't the confederate army allow black soldiers to join? Because they were afraid that they would use the guns to kill white people. March 13th, 1863. Legislation was passed which ruled that slaves could fight in the confederate army for their freedom, but only with the consent of their masters, and not many did.

I made that analogy because I'm pointing out how idiotic it is to compare the confederate states to the Nazi's regime. You can't do it, it just shows a lack of thought and education.

Ahh, but it's not in the U.S. as you're looking at two different governments, there was only slave trading within the Confederate states. Did you know that The Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France?

How long did it take the union to ban slaver ONCE THE WAR WAS OVER? 3 years? Why did it take that long, including the time it took for the war? Crap like that don't happen over night lol. The fact is, the confederacy was further ahead in abolishing slavery and treating slaves like humans than the union was. The confederacy treated slaves with fair pay, they gave the states the rights to abolish slavery (also keep in mind of today's US 10th amendment to the constitution, I know it wasn't there back then, but it can still happen today). The union just wanted to defeat the Confederacy, and they stretched their dollar by decreasing pay to the slaves and making them buy their clothes. One more thing to keep in mind, the banning of slavery happened in 1863, the war started in 61 and ended in 64. Why did it take them so long to think of banning slavery, and then why did it take them an ADDITIONAL 5 years to ban it?

Get one thing straight, Lincoln did not free the slaves. Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nations founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word slavery in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slaveryand then admitted he didnt know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system. hough Lincoln argued that the founding fathers phrase All men are created equal applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting negro equality. In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust. Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didnt apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didnt immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no controlthe Southern states currently fighting against the Union.

The confederate army did allow black soldiers. Although the total number of black Confederate soldiers is statistically insignificant: They made up less than 1 percent of the 800,000 black men of military age (17-50) living in the Confederate states, based on 1860 U.S. census figures, and less than 1 percent of at least 750,000 Confederate soldiers. They still allowed black soldiers. Please look into facts before spewing crap like that.

No matter how you cut the pie, the Confederacy was further ahead than the Union was.

002 wrote

Click to View Content

I made that analogy because I'm pointing out how idiotic it is to compare the confederate states to the Nazi's regime. You can't do it, it just shows a lack of thought and education.

Ahh, but it's not in the U.S. as you're looking at two different governments, there was only slave trading within the Confederate states. Did you know that The Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France?

How long did it take the union to ban slaver ONCE THE WAR WAS OVER? 3 years? Why did it take that long, including the time it took for the war? Crap like that don't happen over night lol. The fact is, the confederacy was further ahead in abolishing slavery and treating slaves like humans than the union was. The confederacy treated slaves with fair pay, they gave the states the rights to abolish slavery (also keep in mind of today's US 10th amendment to the constitution, I know it wasn't there back then, but it can still happen today). The union just wanted to defeat the Confederacy, and they stretched their dollar by decreasing pay to the slaves and making them buy their clothes. One more thing to keep in mind, the banning of slavery happened in 1863, the war started in 61 and ended in 64. Why did it take them so long to think of banning slavery, and then why did it take them an ADDITIONAL 5 years to ban it?

Get one thing straight, Lincoln did not free the slaves. Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nations founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word slavery in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slaveryand then admitted he didnt know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system. hough Lincoln argued that the founding fathers phrase All men are created equal applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting negro equality. In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust. Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didnt apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didnt immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no controlthe Southern states currently fighting against the Union.

The confederate army did allow black soldiers. Although the total number of black Confederate soldiers is statistically insignificant: They made up less than 1 percent of the 800,000 black men of military age (17-50) living in the Confederate states, based on 1860 U.S. census figures, and less than 1 percent of at least 750,000 Confederate soldiers. They still allowed black soldiers. Please look into facts before spewing crap like that.

No matter how you cut the pie, the Confederacy was further ahead than the Union was.

This is great, I found where you're getting your information from.

Listverse.
It's funny how you have copied and pasted things off that website to make a point but have ignored things on that website which disagree with you.
Considering you used the final two points made by this [ Register or Signin to view external links. ] , I'll refresh your memory on the third to last point to answer this:

Did you know that The Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France?

In 1864, the Confederate States began to abandon slavery. There are some indications that even without a war, the Confederacy would have ended slavery. Most historians believe that the Confederacy only started to abandon slavery once their defeat was imminent. If that were true then we are to believe that the CSA wanted independence more than they wanted to hold on to slavery.

That is not something to be proud of. There is a theme in every single one of your points about the confederacy ending slavery, they were doing it as a means to an end. It wasn't the end itself for them.
Winning the war was the goal for the confederacy, freeing slaves to do that was an option.
To Lincoln, freeing the slaves was the goal, winning the war to do that was the ONLY option.

They didn't feel morally obligated to do it, they started doing it because it was something they had to do.
So stop acting like the confederacy is moral, or more moral than Lincoln was. They weren't.
Them ending slavery was a 'we'll do that if you do this for us' deal. That is slimy and stupid and not moral in any way, shape or form.

How long did it take the union to ban slaver ONCE THE WAR WAS OVER? 3 years? Why did it take that long, including the time it took for the war? Crap like that don't happen over night lol. The fact is, the confederacy was further ahead in abolishing slavery and treating slaves like humans than the union was. The confederacy treated slaves with fair pay, they gave the states the rights to abolish slavery (also keep in mind of today's US 10th amendment to the constitution, I know it wasn't there back then, but it can still happen today). The union just wanted to defeat the Confederacy, and they stretched their dollar by decreasing pay to the slaves and making them buy their clothes. One more thing to keep in mind, the banning of slavery happened in 1863, the war started in 61 and ended in 64. Why did it take them so long to think of banning slavery, and then why did it take them an ADDITIONAL 5 years to ban it?

You seem very confused. You say in one breath that slavery was banned in 1868, and then say that it was banned in 1863 in the next. Which is it?
Well, if we're talking about 'the big one', the thirteenth amendment, that was in 1865.
You're confusing the 13th amendment with the 14th amendment which was in 1868.
The 13th amendment abolished slavery.
The 14th amendment regarded civil rights.

Why did the 14th amendment take so long to come into effect? Because every state which was formerly in the confederacy, except Tennessee, refused to ratify it.

Why did it take them so long to think of banning slavery?

You seem to have misunderstood my position.
I'm not arguing that the Union was this idyllic force for good in the world. I'm arguing that, however it happened, by the end of the war the Union was on one side of slavery, and the confederacy was on the other. The confederacy was on the wrong side.
If this was the other way around and the Union were the ones actively fighting to keep slavery a reality, which I know some union states wanted, but there's a difference between wanting something and fighting for it, I would be saying that flags with their imagery should be removed instead.

Get one thing straight, Lincoln did not free the slaves. Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nations founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word slavery in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slaveryand then admitted he didnt know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system. hough Lincoln argued that the founding fathers phrase All men are created equal applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting negro equality. In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust. Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didnt apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didnt immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no controlthe Southern states currently fighting against the Union.

Please, post your sources. It's nice to know who I'm debating. Is it 002 or Sarah Pruitt from 'BeASeedForChange?'

Lincoln was trying to get elected. This is one of those times when I can understand why a politician would be loose with the truth about how they really felt.
If he had told the truth, at that time, he would never have been elected, but let's say you're right, or Sarah is anyway, are we saying that people can't change their opinions about anything?
I'm not arguing that Lincoln was an omnibenevolent man, but was he more correct on the issue of slavery than the confederacy? Absolutely.

The confederate army did allow black soldiers. Although the total number of black Confederate soldiers is statistically insignificant: They made up less than 1 percent of the 800,000 black men of military age (17-50) living in the Confederate states, based on 1860 U.S. census figures, and less than 1 percent of at least 750,000 Confederate soldiers. They still allowed black soldiers. Please look into facts before spewing crap like that.

Fair enough, let me amend my earlier statement:
Why didn't the confederate army allow many black soldiers to join? Because they were afraid that they would use the guns to kill white people.

No matter how you cut the pie, the Confederacy was further ahead than the Union was.

If by 'further ahead' you mean 'more desperate' then sure.
You're not looking at the reasons why the confederacy wanted to end slavery after the war. It wasn't because they thought it was morally right, it's because they thought it was tactically advantageous.

I made that analogy because I'm pointing out how idiotic it is to compare the confederate states to the Nazi's regime. You can't do it, it just shows a lack of thought and education.

If comparing slave owners and an army which fought for the right to own people to murderers and people who fought to murder people is idiotic then call me Forrest Gump.
I think you just don't recognize how abhorrent slavery is and are refusing to entertain the possibility that your ancestors were just as morally reprehensible as Hitler.

The confederate flag, like the Swastika, is a remnant from a time when the country was fighting for the wrong thing.
If you want to fly that flag on your own property, like your truck, or in your front garden, then nobody will stop you.

This is a question about public property though. Personally, I think they should put things like this to a vote. That's what democracy is all about, right?
But am I going to be sad and entertain people screaming about how their freedom of speech has been infringed upon by a flag that they support being removed from a public building? No.

If we were talking about someone having this flag taken off their private property by the Government, I would be against that.

That is a violation of freedom of speech, this is not.

That would be one source, yes. I like to make sure I know what I'm talking about so instead of re-wording what they say, I'd rather copy and paste as you still seem to not understand it.

A belief and a fact are two different things. The FACT is that the confederates treated soldiers better. No?

Lincoln clearly didn't want slavery to be abolished. "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

1868 was when slavery was finally gone, however they decided the war was about slavery in 1863, and made a law in 1865 that took 3 years to pass.

Both sides where getting rid of slavery, I don't see how you misunderstand that. The confederates where even getting the pay grade the same. look up the following "would slavery still be here if the confederates won?" Clearly you don't like me copy and pasting, so I'll save my time and you can look through the multiple articles.

Until you post your sources, I don't feel obligated to so, and as such to anyone readying we're just posting our guesses, not facts.

They where more correct on the issue of slavery than the confederacy? Really? Look at the "big people" on the union side. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his (inherited) slaves in 1862. The union had slaves fight their war and paint them pennies on the dollar. The confederate had very few slave soldiers and paid them almost twice as much as union slaves. Tell me again how the union was "more correct" on the issue of slavery.

One could say the confederate army didn't allow a lot of slaves to fight for them because they wanted to fight their own war, because the slaves didn't want to fight (keep in mind that non slaves had a choice), etc. You saying it's because they where afraid they'd turn on them is a guess based on being on the union side, just like my saying they wanted to fight their own war and protect the slaves is my guess on the confederate side.

Keep in mind it took Lincoln a long time to decide slavery was morally wrong too.

Let's break this down. I'm not saying slavery is right, but it is on no means the same level as the Nazi genocide. Nazi's killed people because of their religion. Boom, dead, no more. Slaves worked, earned pay, and lived. They weren't treated fairly (depending on which side you're looking at) no, but they weren't killed because they where black.

First off, which "confederate flag" are we talking about here? The one for the confederate states, or the battle flag? Keep in mind that battle flag treated black soldiers a lot better than that union flag. You say the country was fighting for the wrong thing like you think that the war was over slavery. It was not. Bear in mind that the union didn't become (officially) anti-slavery until 1863, yet the war started in 1861. The war was more or less about money. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?" To which he replied, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South.

Public property is just that, public, open to everyone. Votes don't matter these days, the government counts them up so they can (and do as we seen with the second Bush election) skew them. Also bear in mind that a public government building is payed for by guess who? You and I, the public. Therefore we technically have a say in what goes on or in that building, though we do not own it. Changing a states flag because you're un-educated is ludicrous. We should be focusing on more pressing matters such as the national debt, the job market, the housing market, etc.

Qwel wrote I live in FL and if they changed my flag I would not give two shits, its a piece of cloth. I dont understand either side of the argument, its a piece of cloth with no significant meaning anymore. Why does everyone care? Do people actually connect with their flag so much that they get upset when they want a change and do people actually take offense from as I said twice already a sheet of cloth?

Stupid, there are bigger issues in this world and we are focusing on a **** flag.. my god.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

002 wrote That would be one source, yes. I like to make sure I know what I'm talking about so instead of re-wording what they say, I'd rather copy and paste as you still seem to not understand it.

A belief and a fact are two different things. The FACT is that the confederates treated soldiers better. No?

Lincoln clearly didn't want slavery to be abolished. "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

1868 was when slavery was finally gone, however they decided the war was about slavery in 1863, and made a law in 1865 that took 3 years to pass.

Both sides where getting rid of slavery, I don't see how you misunderstand that. The confederates where even getting the pay grade the same. look up the following "would slavery still be here if the confederates won?" Clearly you don't like me copy and pasting, so I'll save my time and you can look through the multiple articles.

Until you post your sources, I don't feel obligated to so, and as such to anyone readying we're just posting our guesses, not facts.

They where more correct on the issue of slavery than the confederacy? Really? Look at the "big people" on the union side. William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865. U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his (inherited) slaves in 1862. The union had slaves fight their war and paint them pennies on the dollar. The confederate had very few slave soldiers and paid them almost twice as much as union slaves. Tell me again how the union was "more correct" on the issue of slavery.

One could say the confederate army didn't allow a lot of slaves to fight for them because they wanted to fight their own war, because the slaves didn't want to fight (keep in mind that non slaves had a choice), etc. You saying it's because they where afraid they'd turn on them is a guess based on being on the union side, just like my saying they wanted to fight their own war and protect the slaves is my guess on the confederate side.

Keep in mind it took Lincoln a long time to decide slavery was morally wrong too.

Let's break this down. I'm not saying slavery is right, but it is on no means the same level as the Nazi genocide. Nazi's killed people because of their religion. Boom, dead, no more. Slaves worked, earned pay, and lived. They weren't treated fairly (depending on which side you're looking at) no, but they weren't killed because they where black.

First off, which "confederate flag" are we talking about here? The one for the confederate states, or the battle flag? Keep in mind that battle flag treated black soldiers a lot better than that union flag. You say the country was fighting for the wrong thing like you think that the war was over slavery. It was not. Bear in mind that the union didn't become (officially) anti-slavery until 1863, yet the war started in 1861. The war was more or less about money. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?" To which he replied, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South.

Public property is just that, public, open to everyone. Votes don't matter these days, the government counts them up so they can (and do as we seen with the second Bush election) skew them. Also bear in mind that a public government building is payed for by guess who? You and I, the public. Therefore we technically have a say in what goes on or in that building, though we do not own it. Changing a states flag because you're un-educated is ludicrous. We should be focusing on more pressing matters such as the national debt, the job market, the housing market, etc.

It's obvious that the reasons why the confederacy wanted to get rid of slavery aren't factoring into your opinion. I think that's a mistake.

Slavery being on 'the same level as genocide' is largely philosophical, down to pure opinion, and not something which can be argued with facts, so I'll agree to disagree on that point.

But in the end I agree. I don't believe that a flag is a pressing issue, especially not today where many people couldn't care less.

I believe I've made my point and it is as I said, we're going round in circles.

If you feel like I'm dodging your points, feel free to go back and reread what I've already said, I've already addressed everything, even in the post I'm quoting right now. From your points about union generals owning slaves, to the Union only becoming anti-slavery late in the war, to it not being a Democratic decision to remove the flag.

It's all been addressed and the fact that you are bringing it up again is showing me that we aren't getting anywhere.

You and I already knew we weren't going to get anywhere. I can see you are just taking what the school system teaches you and going by that. I used to be that way too, but I had a great teacher in the 8th grade that showed us this is what I have to teach you so says the government, here's a couple flaws, go find the truth if you wish.

I know it's hard for a lot of people to take in, just like my 9/11 thread in the conspiracy forum, but I really urge people to look things up themselves. The more and more you look into history, you realize that history really is written my the victor.

A few years ago I would've agreed with you that the confederacy was horrible (and as a political structure it was, but not for the issue at hand). After multiple months of indirectly researching the topic, going through hundreds of articles, this is my view on it, and just like everyone with a view, I believe I'm right.

At the end of the day, it happened, it's over, and it can't happen again. People are proud of certain things. You go up to Alaska and you'll see the Alaskan flag flown a lot more than the stars and stripes because they are proud of where they are and the land they're from. Same with the rebel flag.