I know better, and I don't believe it represents the exact same thing. See above...the battle flag was used by the Klan and segregationists over the last 150 years to promote white supremacy and racial intimidation/violence. The Stars and Bars was not. Their shared Confederate history is only part of the story.

This is such a strange argument. No one has denied that here. Slavery was absolutely a problem of all states at the time of the Revolution. It was a North and South problem. Northerners participated in the slave trade. They owned slaves. They purchased cotton grown by slaves to use in the Northern cotton mills. However, he Northern states outlawed slavery before the war, though, and the South seceded to maintain the institution.

Who did what when is a pointless argument. I don't care what your ancestors did. Some of mine owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy. I don't honor them for that. I also don't feel guilty about it. I didn't do it. I wasn't there. I fully admit that they were wrong. The past is the past. We can't change it. We can change our own conduct now, though.

Some days I think there is nothing wrong with the South, except a stubborn refusal to quit arguing that the Civil War was justified and their great-great-great-great-whatever did not make a colossal mistake by engaging in treason against the USA.

The USA engaged in treason against Great Britain. Just saying is all.

Which would matter if we were still a British colony.

It matters even though we're not a British colony. Dismissing the Civil War as a bunch of people committing treason against the USA fails to deal honestly with history. We have two instances of mass treason in our history: One we praise and one we condemn. And like much of history, it doesn't necessarily lend itself to neat and tidy answers.

The fact that Americans today generally think the American Revolution was a good thing doesn't change the fact that it was treason. It's just treason the Americans got away with.

The fact that Americans today generally think that the Confederacy was a bad thing doesn't change that fact that many who participated in it and supported it saw themselves as continuing in the steps and spirit of the American Revolution, which is supposed to have been a good thing.

I'm not defending the Confederacy at all, but there's a little irony in condemning the Confederacy for treason against a country itself born in treason.

A country that was born in treason and ethnic cleansing.

All of that was deemed necessary to create "my country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty...."

Yep, exactly. It doesn't stop being treason just because we won (twice).

Believe me, Great Britain really had to tuck up their balls when we bailed them out of WWII. I sometimes think they would have rather Spain did it.

And then there's the cultural back & forth that is semi friendly but not so much...but that's another topic. :)

No, the difference is that Americans are not claiming, right now, to be loyal citizens of the British Crown who happen to also honor treason against Great Britain. I don't revere Great Britain at all, so there's no hypocrisy in honoring treason against it. But if you claim to be a loyal United States citizen, it is hypocritical to honor anti-US treason.

Further, all treason is not created equal. I believe that having a hereditary monarch at the head of a government is an inherently unjust and evil system. Treason against a monarchy to launch a democracy can be a high moral action. Treason against a democracy because you lost an election cannot be. There is no irony in distinguishing the two, or finding one more honorable than the other.

We won twice?

hmmm

War of 1812.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Many would disagree. Most historians say that was a stalemate.

But that's another conversation for another day, because you have to define what were the war objectives of each side.

Treason is treason. Ask all the people who lost their heads over it. :)

And as a reminder, many people wanted GW to be king instead of president...so obviously they didn't think the system was "inherently unjust and evil." We're nothing but lucky GW was the awesome dude that he was and didn't want to do it. That is what he TRULY should be remembered for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFrQfeI0wFA

You're welcome.

The Articles of Confederation went into effect in 1777, years before the end of the war and GW's pre-emptive abdication. It's not like the country said, "Shoot, GW doesn't want to be king, so we'll have to come up with some other system." There was already a federal democracy in place at that point, as well as in each state's legislature. Yes, GW might have been able to drum up support for an American monarchy if he'd wanted to, but he would have had a real fight against practically every other national leader. For most of the war, American soldiers were fighting on behalf of what was already a democracy, against a monarch.