"This was what the south was doing in the civil war. They were responding to a force that was being initiated on them and the way of life they had."

If they were supporting a society that promoted the freedom of all men - not just those of one color - I could accept that argument and say their cause was just. That simply was not the case. It is contradictory to state that one acts to preserve rights when the intent is to deprive or continue to deprive certain others of rights. I understand the argument and the consequences for economics may be what they say, but I can not agree that the cause was just nor justifiable.

No problem; fly it along with Mexican, Honduran, Salvatoran, Hammer and Sickle flags. Just don't fly the American flag, as it may be offensive and represent exclusion...

According to the revisionist "history," the Civil War was fought over slavery. Even a cursory examination of the real history clearly shows that slavery was a secondary topic. To be sure, it was the catalyst, and a primary topic for the Abolishionists, by they were a minority. States' Rights were the real issue, and that is what the Confederate flag symbolizes. The Statists (Democrat and Republican) are only too happy to get rid of the symbol that most threatens their hegemony.

Are you against the initiation of physical force under all circumstances? Including breaking out of bondage? Should a slave, born into slavery, remain a slave, so as not to initiate physical force. Be caeful of absolutes.

I found some other very interesting information here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_...

It contends that the move to secede had been on the table for at least 30 years prior to the South's actual secession. Lincoln's election was more coincidental than causal, as the secession was over and decided within three months - hardly a time period long enough for an entire swath of the Nation to take such a radical stance.

I agree about getting out of the UN. But, that was not the issue here.

I think you need to do some independent study of the war, not just was was taught to all of us in school. Remember, the victors write the history. When I did so, it was at first difficult to believe how terrible Lincoln was and how he was more concerned with power than justice. A book place to start is "The Real Lincol" with an intro by Dr Walter Williams or the book "The South Was Right!" by two historians named Kennedy.

They rebelled against the authority of the United States government because they were losing their stranglehold on the slavery debate in the halls of Congress. Up to that point, the superior numbers afforded them by the 3/5 compromise put them in control of any talk of ending slavery. Buchanan's election was a clear signal to the South that their political influence in the Federal Government had declined to the point that the Southern States would be hard pressed to keep quashing the abolitionist movement. The North's advances in industry and manufacturing came with an increase in population and voting base where the South's population increase was in slaves and their commensurate lower voting power.

It is one thing to say that the Confederates were advocates of States' rights (which may very well be the case) but quite another to claim that their motivations were to the intent of promoting the liberty of all men. The Confederacy rebelled so that they could protect the institution of slavery as it promoted their economy and their ideals.

Would you change your mind if you learned U.S. troops shot and killed US people on US soil at the order of the commanding officer? Soiunds to me like the military does what it is ordered to do and Milgram was right. No reply expected.

I did not realize you were still fighting a war that has been over for more than a century. We fools moved forward after the hostilities of the War for Southern Independence ended. I guess we should keep burning and pillaging. Right?

Whether or not you agree with the flag, banning it IMHO, it akin to banning a book or free speech. The First Amendment was put in place for the protection of speech you DON'T agree with. By these retailers doing what they've done, they have basically said that they DON'T support the First Amendment. I guess I don't need to be utilizing their business.

Sure I would make a judgement on the house with the Isis flag that I would like to keep an eye on them. I would also go back to my house, oil and clean my guns and be prepared.

At the same time I would be thankful I live in a place where they can hang their Isis flag. That in and of itself does me no harm.

When they want to force me to hang an Isis flag, that's what the freshly cleaned and oiled guns are for.

"When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensible of duties."
-Marquis De Lafayette

This was what the south was doing in the civil war. They were responding to a force that was being initiated on them and the way of life they had. They were also rebelling against a ever growing federal government that put them down in order to maintain power. In my opinion the US that had free commerce, individual as the supreme entity in the land... ended with the start of the civil war because the side that won was fighting for the right of the federal government to use force, not of military but of politics to force a behavior out of some of its citizens.

The Civil war was the fundamental shift in thinking that would result in Sherman's Law in 1890 which was the beginning of the end of the free market.

I just did. Some differences highlighted by Wikipedia: Common defense, general welfare, God, and duties at the confederate rather than state level.

The confederacy did not rebel against society itself. They rebelled against the northern led push for a much stronger federal government at the expense of the rights of individual states.

If they rebelled against society in general, they would not have created the confederate constitution to guarantee rights to their citizens.

My idea after 9-11 was an eviction notice to them, and use the complex for the displaced businesses.

The U.N. building is not private property - it is properly essentially rented, in part by the U.S.
I might settle for removing the U.S. flag - and, by implication, our support. No, I want it to be stronger than that. Shut it down [yeah, I know - fat chance!] and return the flags of the various countries, which are their property, to them. In what form they would be returned.....I leave to your more than fertile imaginations - but I'll lend you my scissors, at least.

I think the question that raises its head is this: how _much_ dissent do we permit in society before it no longer becomes society at all? It is one thing to say we refuse to initiate violence, but what about those who - as the Confederacy did some 150 years ago - openly rebel against society itself? It calls into my mind the kingmen...

Are they not first declaring their intent to wage a war of ideals and so does the reaction really qualify as an initiation of force? If someone hung an ISIS flag (it actually happened) in front of their home, would your first reaction be anything other than to identify that household as an overt and proclaimed threat to liberty?

Free speech is not an unlimited right. A nation's self-preservation at some point must come into play in this discussion.

Go to the UN and cut down those flags first. Many TRUE enemies there.

Thanks for the book suggestions. I have a long list I want to read and just added two to it. Those may even bubble up ahead of some others as that sounds very interesting.

I was much simpler than that, simply that we traded one form of slavery (black slaves) for another form (slavery by state) as a result of the civil war. Which GOP enslaving southern farmers would definitely fall into the new form of slavery I was referring too. Its a form of government imposed slavery rather than individual imposed slavery.

I agree that we should respect our military people as they do much for us.

The post above states that, and I will intentionally use different wording that captures the same principle, nut likely not the intent of the original poster. Also removed all military specific references, and I do not agree with the next paragraph.

I would feel obligated to go and cut down someones personal property because I do not agree with what it represents.

The basic principle boiled down like this is what I walk away from the statement with. The principle is wrong as it initiates force against another.

I do respect the military as without it we would have even less freedom than we have today. I do not respect and ideal that at its heart is what this comment appears to be at first glance.

Have some respect. The purpose of the military is to protect the people of a nation from "all threats, foreign and domestic". The only reason we have a right to speak our minds is because of the soldiers who defend it.

The Confederacy seceded from the United States of America and initiated war when they fired on Fort Sumpter. The flag of the Confederacy was the flag of an enemy army and wherever it was raised it proclaimed the allegiance of that area to the Confederacy and its ideals - just like raising the Stars and Stripes proclaims allegiance to the United States and its ideals. There were two sides in that war - the bloodiest war in US history both in terms of total casualties as well as percentage of population affected - and those who lived at that time were either on one side or the other. There were no fence-sitters.

Thanks for the detailed info.

I advocate it!

After all If you read the mantra of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you'll see clearly that pirates inhibit global warming!

There was a port arrival charge on foreign ships that arrived to load U.S. goods for export overseas. Originally, once a ship paid the arrival charge, it could dock at a number of U.S. ports without further payment. Often a ship would receive cotton from Savannah, Charleston, and Norfolk before it had a full cargo load. Under Buchanan those charges were applied at every port rather than just a single time, making the cotton more expensive to foreign buyers. This was an attempt to choke foreign demand and force more domestic sales. Ironically, efforts like this, and the war itself destroyed the market for U.S. cotton, and led to the growing of cotton in Egypt and India by the British empire.