It is a matter of opinion what it symbolizes. It is not that to me.

I think there is a lot to be learned here! First of all symbols don't have any more power than you assign them! I don't like seeing an American flag abused, but I'm not going to let it upset me. I can choose how to respond. Just like I can when someone shoves a fist in the air and screams BLACK POWER in my face. Really? That's soooo third grade!!! And both are totally uncalled for! Ebony and Ivory, y'all! Can't we all just love one another?

It's not objectively a symbol of racism and violence. It's a symbol of a way of life on plantations in the southern USA.

No, it's not a symbol of the way of life on the plantations. The Confederate flag as a symbol of hate was NEVER the national flag of the Confederacy - it was a battle flag for one group. The design has always been popular among Southerners to represent their heritage - not slavery. A few radicals used it in the course of committing hate crimes and suddenly it "represents" racism and hate. Most people don't even know what the Civil War was about, so they can't validate their "racism" claims. People who think they can are only following what they've been taught by the Left.

What of the USA splitting from Great Britain? The Confederacy had the right to secede, but it was denied that right by war that killed millions.

I have never seen anyone use the Confederate States flag for anything concerning racism.

The slavery issue was an abolitionist movement (think of it as "Black Lives Matter" in the 19th century). The Civil War was never about slavery. Lincoln himself said this in a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune. The reason for the Civil War was an attack on the South's states' rights.

The slavery issue was an abolitionist movement (think of it as "Black Lives Matter" in the 19th century). The Civil War was never about slavery. Lincoln himself said this in a letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune. The reason for the Civil War was an attack on the South's states' rights.

Explain why the Civil War was not initially about slavery? Yes, the victors write history, but the issue of slavery was fought for some time by words, deeds and the infamous assault on Sen. Sumner by Preston Brooks on the Senate floor. Read all the declarations of causes by which the States justified their secession from the Union. Mississippi's, for example, explicitly puts slavery at the forefront of its complaint: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." It's always the love of money, isn't it?

Only 4 states wrote down the reasons for their secession. Less than 25% of people in the south even had slaves. And if it was only about keeping their slaves they would have just let the Corwin Amendment pass ensuring they could always have slaves. Lincoln had already encouraged everyone to sign it. And he didn't care about the plight of slaves either! He said they could "root, hog or die" Lee was concerned about what would become of them if they were freed. But to answer your question, it was about states rights, Lincoln's election, economic issues, military protection, context, the National road, the proposed railroad construction that was supposed to be from LA to CA that was changed last minute to be built up north instead, territorial expansion, the south had lost the most people and blood in the war with Mexico and they thought they should get more of the land that was won, blacks being exempt from the draft, keeping the union whole at all costs, rural vs. metropolitan culture, money the north was stealing the south blind, then wanted them to give up their slaves which were their biggest investments! They costed about $200,000.00 each in today's money! The banking mercantile and railroad interests were draining them. Abolitionist terrorism (John Brown) inciting rebellion, the tariffs of 1828 and 1832, (As thinker said. Why didn't you ask him this question by the way? He said the same thing!) less federal government, taxation, and legislative action. And after the John Brown incident the south felt like they were being invaded and attacked! They were not being heard and felt like the government wasn't representing their interests (because it wasn't) Even the issue of slavery was not so much about the moral issue of slavery as it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system. Oh and BTW it was the democrats who owned all 4 million slaves when the civil war began. Not one slave was owned by a republican.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery." - Abraham Lincoln in a letter to New York Tribune Editor Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

Democrats owned every one of the 4 million slaves that were owned at the beginning of the civil war. Not one was owned by a republican!

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, Linda. There were slave owners in the North, and not all Northerners were anti-slavery, nor were they all Republicans. I don't believe ALL of the owners were democrats, though I'm sure a vast majority of them were.

The flag was not raised to "kill Northerners and prevent them from abolishing slavery". The North provoked the South into a war - it was an attempt to abolish the 10th amendment and make the states subservient to the federal government.

No, the south did not lose. They were out produced with the articles to fight the war with and attrition required the south to end the war.

...required the south to end the war. Meaning - they lost.

.

The South actually WON the war. The moment the last state seceded from the Union, the Union was done. The safeguard that the founding fathers put in the Constitution to enable future generations to do away with it was accidentally triggered - but no one knows it.

Yes they did! The slave states that stayed in the Union, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky. And every one of the 4 million slaves were owned by democrats. Not one by a republican.