[timsally]

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, Section VI with Ulysses Simpson Grant as part of the unbroken chain of command.

[SamReidHughes]

They were defending themselves against invasion by the U.S. Army.

[timsally]

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

[SamReidHughes]

That's just a bunch of words, a grab-bag of facts, and it lacks a philosophical or moral foundation connecting it together. However, it would satisfy an automated grading system.

An actual moral reason not to fly the confederate flag on your home or your video game automobile would be because many black people interpret it as a racist symbol, and they might feel unloved and alienated.

A philosophical reason would be if you disagree with the sectionalist politics of it. That's why many groups opposed the introduction of the symbol into state flags in the past. That sounds more aligned with your reasons, but is a different reason. The act of flying Italian, German, Mexican, or British flags to celebrate one's ethnic heritage seems quite different than that of flying the confederate flag.

[timsally]

The racism aspect has been well covered elsewhere. In addition to this, it is the battle flag of an illegal militia who killed U.S. soldiers. Opposing this clearly has an extremely strong moral foundation.

Your arguments are transparently shallow, poorly thought out, and profoundly un-American. If my arguments would satisfy an automated grading system, yours would fail immediately upon parsing. I see no value in continuing a conversation with someone who claims there is no moral foundation in opposing the killing of U.S. troops by illegal insurgents. Feel free to have the last word here on this message board; in the real world the last word was the surrender of the Confederacy.

[marcusverus]

> 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.

[KozmoNau7]

SC initiated hostilities by seceding. It is a clear attack on a nation to secede from it, something that is classified as treason.

[marcusverus]

People either have the right to self-govern, or they don't. If you think the right of a population to self-govern is subject to veto by another population, you don't actually believe in a right to self-govern.

[timsally]

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.