The media doesn't care about the Confederate Flag comment because the media knows that it isn't racist. The Confederate Flag represented exactly what the Confederacy represented - states rights. It was all about breaking away in order to decide for one's self.

It wasn't about slavery, and most experts determined that slavery wasn't an issue because it was ending anyway. It was about the North industrial system moving funds towards the north and making laws that made it harder for the Southern agricultural system to compete. It was about trade laws and the rest that made it costly for Southerners to live.

Even the term "Confederacy" goes back to the Articles of Confederation, the very first U.S. government that gave states more power to themselves than the U.S. Constitution did.

Was it about racism? NO. It never was. It was about the South being able to survive on its own without the Northern pressure that was trying to keep them monopolized when it came to trade goods.

And what right does a Brit have to talk about U.S. "treason" or U.S. History with such a pompous aire?

He doesn't know. He is just a hate-mongerer and should be ashamed for such shoddy writing.

Regardless of what it actually meant at the time, it has become a symbol of ignorance and racial bigotry. Plus, if you truly believe the race/slavery issue was separate from Confederate ideals, I have a bridge for sale in Iceland that is a true bargain.

" Regardless of what it actually meant at the time, it has become a symbol of ignorance and racial bigotry."

No it hasn't.

The Original US Flag is more racist than the Confederate Flag. Who do you think decided that there should be slavery and that slaves should be 3/5ths of a person?

It wasn't the South!

No offense, "San", but isn't it a little early in the morning to be drinking so heavily? Do you expect us to believe that Northern states actually "decided" (to use your parlance) of their own free will that Southern states should receive a disproportionate representation in Congress?

Anyway, I have better things to do with my time than argue with an incredible dumbass such as yourself (why are you even on Slate, anyway? Was David Duke's personal site down?), so rather than attempt to reason with you, I'll just lazily cut and paste from from the 3/5 Compromise Wiki:

The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio" had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free (i.e., voting) population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.

Historian Garry Wills has postulated that without the additional "slave" votes, Jefferson would have lost the election of 1800 (Adams won a majority of the popular vote and only the skewed Electoral College gave Jefferson the Presidency). Also, "...slavery would have been excluded from Missouri...Jackson's Indian removal policy would have failed...the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in territories won from Mexico....the Kansas-Nebraska bill would have failed...."

Yes, San, you're right though. Rational actors always decide to throw away influence and power for no good reason. The North railroaded that through. Hahahahahahahahaaaaa.

Excellent as always, Hitch.

The south lost, and it was over 140 years ago.

Oh, yea, isn't it time to drop this southern political correctness about states rights and deciding for one's self?

When I was growing up in Maryland 50 years ago around un-reconstructed southerners, there was no shame at all about slavery. I heard many an argument about how slavery was good for the slaves (much better than the "wage slavery" in the north) and God's natural order. Futher, there was no attempt to hide the linkage between the Confederacy and slavery. What changed? Why isn't anyone ready to stand up for slavery any more?

Nice, try, though. TTYL.

Of course the flag isn't racist, the pope's a methodist and bears only shit indoors. This reminds me of a particularly assanine discussion I once had with a sneering skinhead who told me that the offence I felt at the sight of his swastika tatoo only served to demonstrate my own ignorance since the symbol originally had connotations of fertility in 2nd century India or whatever it was.

Whatever the original "meaning" of the flag, it has come to stand, among other things, for a certain strand of attavistic white supremacy and as such is an affront to all manner of people. A presidential candidate endorsing its display (without any qualification) shows, at best, questionable judgement and so I have to agree with Hitch that the media's silence on the issue is disturbing.

"Do you expect us to believe that Northern states actually "decided" (to use your parlance) of their own free will that Southern states should receive a disproportionate representation in Congress?"

Never heard of the 3/5ths compromise put by the Northern states to decrease the Southern population so they would get less representation in Congress?

But it seems like the only dumbass is you and the other racist Northerners who decided such things.

It seems that racists like you were upset that the South would have rights and the ability to buy goods from outside the country, so YOU determined that blacks weren't 100% human.

You are sick.

"Futher, there was no attempt to hide the linkage between the Confederacy and slavery."

Hey douchebag, there is no attempt to hide the linage between the United States and slavery.

There was slavery before the Confederacy, you retard.

You are a sick individual who probably tries to lynch black people and instead try to make it seem like southerns are the real racists.

You are a sick freak and should be locked in a jail before you hurt someone.

The amount of lies you spew forth definitely shows you are trying to hide from the fact that you are the true racist bastard here.

Oh, and idiot, Robert E Lee got rid of his slaves way before Grant ever did.

Your myth about the South is just that, a way to hide from your own racism. You are sick.

Wow, I have never seen such naked and debased immorality on a liberal site before, congratulations.

You are saying that blacks should be slaves. That is what you saying, admit it. You then say that, even though they ought to be slaves, and have no rights at all (the least of which would be voting rights, of course), they should nevertheless be counted as citizens for the purposes of representation in Congress?

Why don't we take that a step further? I live in Illinois. We have a very large population of Latino immigrants from Mexico and Central America, including many, many illegals. So hey, they shouldn't be allowed to vote, no, they're not people, just like slaves aren't to you, but.....we should still get extra representatives in the House and extra votes in the electoral college, right, genius?

I'm done with the no offense part, you are one depraved fucking retard. I'm surprised you can even read and write, honestly. You're like a character out of a Faulker novel, or maybe McCarthy's Outer Dark. If you said to my face what you just wrote down, I would smack your face in front of God and all the kids on the street.

LOL! "San", get a life you fuckin' loser!

" You are saying that blacks should be slaves."

And that is a damn lie, and you are commiting libel.

Wow.

You should be thrown in jail, you damn liar.

"just like slaves aren't to you, but.....we should still get extra representatives in the House and extra votes in the electoral college, right, genius?"

Those under 18 can't vote, and their population still counts towards representation in Congress.

OUCH.

Sure looks like you are a damn retard without a clue.

Next time, pass the second grade before you try to come onto an internet forum.