I don't think anyone is taking away the right for an individual to fly the flag.

 

Not the right, but the ability.  Strong-arming businesses to stop selling anything related to the Confederacy and demanding Confederate monuments and memorials come down is stripping individuals of the ability to celebrate something that they wish to celebrate.  The Atlanta NAACP wants to sand blast the faces off of Stone Mountain.  I don't believe in coercing people to do anything nor taking something away from people.

---

The irony in this statement is terrific in that it is being related to the Confederacy.

 

There is certainly some irony in regards to slavery.  

 

Although, I think there were other ways to eventually abolish slavery without civil war.  I believe the South would have been amenable to certain solutions that would have phased slavery out, but then again, for the North it was never about slavery, but subjugation (of southerners in lieu of blacks). 

---

The victor writes the history.

Except in the case of the Civil War, where Southern apologist history books continue to be passed out in the south to this day, taught by "states rights" teachers.

---

Except in the case of the Civil War, where Southern apologist history books continue to be passed out in the south to this day, taught by "states rights" teachers.

 

I can't speak for everyone, but when I went to public school in the south, the history books were the same as the ones being taught in the north.  The North beat the South because the North wanted to abolish slavery and the South wouldn't do away with it.  It wasn't until I grew older and began reading more literature where I came to the opinion that it was a complex war waged over complex things, such as politics and money more than any righteous cause.  It was a war that had been brewing for 30 or 40 years, long before abolishing slavery had any kind of traction.  Slavery was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

---

I can't speak for everyone, but when I went to public school in the south, the history books were the same as the ones being taught in the north.  The North beat the South because the North wanted to abolish slavery and the South wouldn't do away with it.  It wasn't until I grew older and began reading more literature where I came to the opinion that it was a complex war waged over complex things, such as politics and money more than any righteous cause.  It was a war that had been brewing for 30 or 40 years, long before abolishing slavery had any kind of traction.  Slavery was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

The textbook I used at a Jacksonville high school for AP US History specified slavery as a cause first, then spent most of a chapter explaining several other causes that were about equal to slavery in their influence over the decision to go to war. My history teacher, who I still hold a great respect for but now strongly disagree with on this one point, took a similar stance. In her view, slavery was a cause of the Civil War, but states' rights, economic disparity and the tariff were the main causes. The losers wrote the history books and taught the future teachers in that instance.

---

Not the right, but the ability. Strong-arming businesses to stop selling anything related to the Confederacy and demanding Confederate monuments and memorials come down is stripping individuals of the ability to celebrate something that they wish to celebrate. The Atlanta NAACP wants to sand blast the faces off of Stone Mountain. I don't believe in coercing people to do anything nor taking something away from people.

They still have the ability. But views are changing and this has always been a part of America. Whether you think it is right or wrong is beside the point. This is freedom (though we are not truly free). Both sides get that freedom.

---

They still have the ability. But views are changing and this has always been a part of America. Whether you think it is right or wrong is beside the point. This is freedom (though we are not truly free). Both sides get that freedom.

 

Unfortunately,  you are right.  And its becoming more and more prevalent today.  The freedom to stifle the opinions of those who you don't agree with.

---

You can probably find the answer in your very own post.  300,000+ southerners lost their lives and countless more seriously injured which means they have a lot of descendants who relate with the "Don't tread on me" mindset.  If the North had lost and the South annexed the United States, you would probably see war memorials tributed to the North and US Flags by groups of people.  The history would probably be different too - probably along the lines of how we rose up against tyranny twice in 100 years.  The victor writes the history.

 

Just because someone doesn't like something, doesn't mean they should try and take it from people who do.  Live and let live and get over it.  I don't fly the Confederate Flag, nor have me or my family ever owned anything Confederate related, but I respect the right of people who do.

 

 

But it was their own fault they lost those 300,000 + lives.

 

As to your closing statement, I have two responses.  First, lowering the Confederate flag from the state capitol in South Carolina does not, has not, and will not ever, on its own, infringe upon the rights of private individuals to fly it on their own property.  To suggest otherwise is patently disingenuous.  Secondly, to the extent that people choose to put any idea, including the ideas represented by the Confederate flag, into the proverbial marketplace of ideas, one of the costs associated with such a move is possible criticism of the idea you are floating.  Confederate apologists want to be able to fly their flag unfettered by the well deserved criticism that goes along with it.

 

May they rot, too.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Not the right, but the ability.  Strong-arming businesses to stop selling anything related to the Confederacy and demanding Confederate monuments and memorials come down is stripping individuals of the ability to celebrate something that they wish to celebrate.  The Atlanta NAACP wants to sand blast the faces off of Stone Mountain.  I don't believe in coercing people to do anything nor taking something away from people.

I thought conservatives liked the "invisible hand of the marketplace" dictating behavior.

 

But truth be told, there wasn't much time for a grass root effort to pressure those retailers like Walmart, Amazon, et al, to stop selling Confederate merchandise.  They largely decided to do that on their own.  Certainly, corporations, as people, have consciences and the ability to act according to their consciences...right?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

The losers wrote the history books and taught the future teachers in that instance.

 

Or they're right.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Or they're right.

Not in this case. We've been through this already. Browse through the thread and read all the articles of secession that mention slavery and race without talking about states' rights, economic conditions or a tariff. The Civil War was overwhelmingly about slavery, and the only people who refuse to recognize that are revisionist apologists who are too busy crying about the rebel flag coming down from the South Carolina state capitol to go back and look at the actual historical documents that prove how misguided they are.

---

I can't speak for everyone, but when I went to public school in the south, the history books were the same as the ones being taught in the north.  The North beat the South because the North wanted to abolish slavery and the South wouldn't do away with it.  It wasn't until I grew older and began reading more literature where I came to the opinion that it was a complex war waged over complex things, such as politics and money more than any righteous cause.  It was a war that had been brewing for 30 or 40 years, long before abolishing slavery had any kind of traction.  Slavery was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

 

The textbook I used at a Jacksonville high school for AP US History specified slavery as a cause first, then spent most of a chapter explaining several other causes that were about equal to slavery in their influence over the decision to go to war. My history teacher, who I still hold a great respect for but now strongly disagree with on this one point, took a similar stance. In her view, slavery was a cause of the Civil War, but states' rights, economic disparity and the tariff were the main causes. The losers wrote the history books and taught the future teachers in that instance.

 

I have to agree with FreeAgent01.  Yes slavery was much of what the war was about, but the reasons for slavery had everything to do with economics, politics, money, etc.  In that period, the north was more industrialized as in most people lived in cities and worked at jobs in the cities to support themselves.  They had no use for slaves.  The southern states produced food and raw materials, and slavery to them was necessary in order to produce at the levels necessary to be economically competitive.  Remember, not everyone who lived in the southern states owned slaves.  It was the larger land owners and the wealthier among them that owned slaves.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I thought conservatives liked the "invisible hand of the marketplace" dictating behavior.

 

But truth be told, there wasn't much time for a grass root effort to pressure those retailers like Walmart, Amazon, et al, to stop selling Confederate merchandise.  They largely decided to do that on their own.  Certainly, corporations, as people, have consciences and the ability to act according to their consciences...right?

True but you know as well as I that the move to cease selling them was preemptive to stave off any protest and/or boycotts.  The move was never about their conscience but about the bottom line.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

True but you know as well as I that the move to cease selling them was preemptive to stave off any protest and/or boycotts.  The move was never about their conscience but about the bottom line.

So they stopped selling Confederate paraphernalia because they THOUGHT there MIGHT be protests or boycotts?


Good!


Sucks when that invisible hand is giving you the finger or smacking you around, doesn't it? They should have stopped selling that stuff long ago.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I thought conservatives liked the "invisible hand of the marketplace" dictating behavior.


But truth be told, there wasn't much time for a grass root effort to pressure those retailers like Walmart, Amazon, et al, to stop selling Confederate merchandise. They largely decided to do that on their own. Certainly, corporations, as people, have consciences and the ability to act according to their consciences...right?

I'm not necessarily a conservative, but I do like the invisible hand thing.


Let's not act like these corporations all suddenly had an ephipany of conscious and that is why the merchandise is off their shelves. Its negative media attention driven by lynch mobs that caused these stores to be preemptive. This isn't a free market thing. There certainly is a demand for the merchandise, but because of a very vocal sect, the stores were forced to remove the goods for fear of future losses in selling other goods. I don't like what the mob is doing, but I don't hold any hard feelings - it's within their rights. I hold more ill will towards companies who crumble to being strong-armed.


Should these companies next remove bikinis, haltertops, yoga pants, etc., because conservative muslims find it very offensive? Where does it end?

---

I'm not necessarily a conservative, but I do like the invisible hand thing.


Let's not act like these corporations all suddenly had an ephipany of conscious and that is why the merchandise is off their shelves. Its negative media attention driven by lynch mobs that caused these stores to be preemptive. This isn't a free market thing. There certainly is a demand for the merchandise, but because of a very vocal sect, the stores were forced to remove the goods for fear of future losses in selling other goods. I don't like what the mob is doing, but I don't hold any hard feelings - it's within their rights. I hold more ill will towards companies who crumble to being strong-armed.


Should these companies next remove bikinis, haltertops, yoga pants, etc., because conservative muslims find it very offensive? Where does it end?

Much of what I posted was tongue in cheek.

 

Of course big corporations are NOT people and do not have consciences.

 

However, there may have been reasons other than coercion that caused these companies to stop selling the items.

 

It is entirely possible the decision makers for the entities may have thought the Confederate items were of dubious morality in the first place, and were not entirely comfortable peddling in these things even before the massacre.

 

Bottom line is these corporations, of their own free will, decided to stop selling Confederate goods.  There are plenty of other businesses who continue to sell them, again of their own free will.

 

As far as "rights" are concerned, nothing lost, nothing gained.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Much of what I posted was tongue in cheek.


Of course big corporations are NOT people and do not have consciences.


However, there may have been reasons other than coercion that caused these companies to stop selling the items.


It is entirely possible the decision makers for the entities may have thought the Confederate items were of dubious morality in the first place, and were not entirely comfortable peddling in these things even before the massacre.


Bottom line is these corporations, of their own free will, decided to stop selling Confederate goods. There are plenty of other businesses who continue to sell them, again of their own free will.


As far as "rights" are concerned, nothing lost, nothing gained.

Sure, it is entirely possible that these items were already on the verge and the massacre was just the impetus. However, they didn't immediately ban the items after the massacre, they waited until the Confederate flag debate started raging. To me, it was a preemptive move which is par for the course for large corporations - run away scared from progressives for fear of the image that the company will be painted in.


If Walmart is acting in good conscious by banning these items, why shouldn't a bakery be permitted to regulate what they write on a cake? Can't have it both ways, and that goes for both sides of the aisle.


In the end, I just have a heavy distaste for using companies as weapons.

---

Bakeries can regulate what they put on a cake.  They can't, however, refuse to sell someone a cake for discriminatory reasons.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Bakeries can regulate what they put on a cake.  They can't, however, refuse to sell someone a cake for discriminatory reasons.

 

The bakers in Oregon were fined and punished for refusing to make a cake specifically celebrating gay marriage. They did not refuse to sell one of their regular cakes to to couple. How is that any different
 (other than the government edicts) from WalMart refusing to make a cake with a confederate flag? None of these businesses will turn away a gay customer who wants to buy something a straight customer wants.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The bakers in Oregon were fined and punished for refusing to make a cake specifically celebrating gay marriage. They did not refuse to sell one of their regular cakes to to couple. How is that any different
 (other than the government edicts) from WalMart refusing to make a cake with a confederate flag? None of these businesses will turn away a gay customer who wants to buy something a straight customer wants.

 

Except what the customer does with their cake later is none of their business.  If a church group came in and wanted to use a cake to celebrate some church event, you're saying it'd be fine for the people to refuse that cake?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.