Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism

[Helz]

North wanted to end slavery, South didn't. South was clearly on the verge of seceding so the North compromised to allow slavery in existing Southern slave states. The South saw the writing on the wall that even if this happened, slavery wasn't destined to stay so they seceded anyway to ensure it's survival on their terms. The Union declared war because they seceded. This is as layman as I think I can make it while not subscribing to a biased narrative. I really do not know why you keep trying to push this other narrative.

Would it be a shock for me to say that I feel like this is a biased narrative? The story of the moral and good North wanting what was right but accepting less to try to make everyone happy while the evil south was greedy and seceded forcing the north to declare war? This is as biased as it gets. The south is evil while the north is good in spite of the presented facts.

Why is it such a terrible thing to accept the north was also evil in this situation? I don't think a single piece of information has come up to suggest anything against it other than arguing the south was evil. Why is it such a stretch to believe both sides were wrong when we have access to years of historical accounts of almost every side in every war ever acting out of self interest?

[Ganelon]

Let me rephrase this:
For the north, the war was about secession and keeping the union intact. For the south, the war was about slavery. I’m saying the Union didn’t give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.

I also don’t think it was Northern greed that led to the war - I think the North simply wanted to keep the Union intact.

[oops_ur_dead]

Let me rephrase this:
For the north, the war was about secession and keeping the union intact. For the south, the war was about slavery. I’m saying the Union didn’t give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.

I also don’t think it was Northern greed that led to the war - I think the North simply wanted to keep the Union intact.

I can't understand how you logic yourself into such a position. You admit that the war was about slavery, and for the north the war was about keeping the union intact. Yet the whole reason the south started the war by seceding was because they wanted to keep slaves. If the north didn't care about slaves then why the fuck didn't they just keep slavery legal and end the whole thing immediately lmao. Or just not start it in the first place.

[Ganelon]

I can't understand how you logic yourself into such a position. You admit that the war was about slavery, and for the north the war was about keeping the union intact. Yet the whole reason the south started the war by seceding was because they wanted to keep slaves. If the north didn't care about slaves then why the fuck didn't they just keep slavery legal and end the whole thing immediately lmao. Or just not start it in the first place.

Good question. The political climate at the start of the war was such that it is possible the South wouldn’t just have surrendered and asked to be welcomed back into the Union. It was not inconceivable to them that the North would’ve abolished slavery in their territories anyhow. I had something else to say but I forgot what it was soooooo

[oops_ur_dead]

Good question. The political climate at the start of the war was such that it is possible the South wouldn’t just have surrendered and asked to be welcomed back into the Union. It was not inconceivable to them that the North would’ve abolished slavery in their territories anyhow. I had something else to say but I forgot what it was soooooo

But the whole reason they seceded was because Lincoln won the election and he was the anti-slavery candidate. It's not like secession happened randomly one day and they had to figure out why later.

[Ash]

Let me rephrase this:
For the north, the war was about secession and keeping the union intact. For the south, the war was about slavery. I’m saying the Union didn’t give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.

I also don’t think it was Northern greed that led to the war - I think the North simply wanted to keep the Union intact.

The southern states wanted state rights so that they can keep slaves. They feared that with the election of Abraham Lincoln, their state rights (slavery was a state right at that time) would be diminished. While this was happening, the Northern states were expanding westward, gaining more states that favored federal laws over state laws. This is why the Southern states seceded. Because state rights favored slavery and discrimination, and the North wanted to take away state rights. State rights in the United States are shit because even after the Civil War, Jim Crow laws (more state rights) became a thing regardless.

So yes, at its very core principle, the North wanted to take away or restrict slavery as hypocritical as it may seem from someone like Abe Lincoln.

[rumox]

And I'd fall back on my original point, the causation cannot be put aside for the justification. Full circle yay.

[rumox]

We going round again?

[rumox]

Never said the North wasn't evil in fact I have made several posts indicating the opposite. If you choose to interpret that I have the stance that the North is morally superior and can't be evil after I have said numerous times they weren't then that's on you, not me. I'm not here to argue every half degree, intricate variable of the civil war. I have said my purpose time and time again, you cannot separate the abolishment sentiment that predominantly came from Northern states from why the South seceded. I think I have said this at least 5 times now. Literally go read the thread again if you think I am propping the North up on some false moral platform.

You and Ganelon can run off on tangents all you want but I will keep bringing up the point that Ganelon tries to stray from.

[rumox]

Also saying Abraham Lincoln was racist has no weight. It was mid 1800's. Every man and his dog was probably racist.

Was waiting for when the appeasement from the north to keep the union together was going to be mentioned lol.

The Union was by no means morally superior. If you read the actual appeasements they tried to make you will see how cooked everyone in the USA was. Some of it can be argued as time wasting but the Corwin Amendment... lol

Sounds fairly standard as far as war time doctrines go but the actual implementation of it leaves a lot to be desired. The south did not recover for a very long time.

Sherman by no means is innocent, he pretty clearly sets himself up to be absolved of any possible perceived immorality while at the same time reaping the rewards if such immorality isn't perceived.

Quick look over shows I am well aware of the immoralities of the North. But again, I am not here to argue the immoralities of the North when there are people in this thread trying to prop up the "state rights" argument over slavery.

[rumox]

From the link in previous posts

Contemporary historians overwhelmingly agree that secession was motivated by slavery. There were numerous causes for secession, but preservation and expansion of slavery was easily the most important of them. The confusion may come from blending the causes of secession with the causes of the war, which were separate but related issues. (Lincoln entered a military conflict not to free the slaves but to put down a rebellion or, as he put it, to preserve the Union.)

Even historians of that era overwhelmingly disagree with the rhetoric put out here.

[Ganelon]

From the link in previous posts



Even historians of that era overwhelmingly disagree with the rhetoric put out here.

So, the quote there says that the Union fought to put down a rebellion. I do agree slavery was a contentious issue in the north but it was definitely nowhere near as important to them as it’s made out to be.

[Ganelon]

Never said the North wasn't evil in fact I have made several posts indicating the opposite. If you choose to interpret that I have the stance that the North is morally superior and can't be evil after I have said numerous times they weren't then that's on you, not me. I'm not here to argue every half degree, intricate variable of the civil war. I have said my purpose time and time again, you cannot separate the abolishment sentiment that predominantly came from Northern states from why the South seceded. I think I have said this at least 5 times now. Literally go read the thread again if you think I am propping the North up on some false moral platform.

You and Ganelon can run off on tangents all you want but I will keep bringing up the point that Ganelon tries to stray from.

I’m not sure who you’re arguing with here. Both of us agreed that the South was evil; we simply stated that the North as, as well.

[rumox]

This entire discussion is 50x longer than it needs to be because it literally ran off into dozens of whataboutisms.

[Helz]

Never said the North wasn't evil in fact I have made several posts indicating the opposite. If you choose to interpret that I have the stance that the North is morally superior and can't be evil after I have said numerous times they weren't then that's on you, not me. I'm not here to argue every half degree, intricate variable of the civil war. I have said my purpose time and time again, you cannot separate the abolishment sentiment that predominantly came from Northern states from why the South seceded. I think I have said this at least 5 times now. Literally go read the thread again if you think I am propping the North up on some false moral platform.

You and Ganelon can run off on tangents all you want but I will keep bringing up the point that Ganelon tries to stray from.

This has good points. I really think there is very few points you have made that I felt were unfair. I should probably step back and consider your position more as I post. Call it a character flaw of mine.

This entire discussion is 50x longer than it needs to be because it literally ran off into dozens of whataboutisms.

I do get what your saying here but I very honestly dislike the idea that "whataboutism" is treated like a logical fallacy. It basically allows for an argument to ignore context/circumstance when convenient and frame the other persons comments as a red herring. If what I said is erroneous its a red herring. If its not then "whataboutism" is just a crappy way to exclude conversation that detracts from your desired position. It creates the vague direction that someone is talking about 'other stuff' to deflate or support some other unspoken position which is one really ugly logic jump allowing misrepresentation on an extreme level.

Maybe its just our mafia roots considering the counter train strategy but that line allows for an insane amount of bias while attempting to command the consideration of a logical fallacy and I just don't care for it.

[Ganelon]

I think it’s simple really: the South was racist, AND they used racism as an excuse for slavery.
The North was racist but they were industrialized and didn’t need slaves. Why do you think the north abolished slavery very early on (with New York abolishing it in 1792, if I’m not mistaken).

[Ganelon]

Anyways if the Union had really cared about blacks they wouldn’t have founded the American Colonizatjon Society. Even ignoring the way Liberia turned out, you can’t kick your citizens from your country just because they’re of a different skin colour.

[rumox]

No Ganelon my point of discussion with you and Helz are different, you aren't the same person. My point with you and always has been is how you keep pushing away the slavery aspect of the civil war. You have done it since the beginning of the thread and you are still doing it.

>Abolishment was an undeniable Northern policy
>War is started over this policy

"Northerners didn't give a shit about slavery they just wanted to protect the union."

If you think the Northerners didn't give a shit about slavery what was the point of even taking the stance? You keep on trying to separate the slavery when you fucking can't, then you go off on a tangent. You can't chop away the driving factor of something and just look at the result. This is what I have been saying on the topic since I started commenting on it. I give up chasing you down all these rabbit holes you go down to dodge this.

[oops_ur_dead]

No Ganelon my point of discussion with you and Helz are different, you aren't the same person. My point with you and always has been is how you keep pushing away the slavery aspect of the civil war. You have done it since the beginning of the thread and you are still doing it.

>Abolishment was an undeniable Northern policy
>War is started over this policy

"Northerners didn't give a shit about slavery they just wanted to protect the union."

If you think the Northerners didn't give a shit about slavery what was the point of even taking the stance? You keep on trying to separate the slavery when you fucking can't, then you go off on a tangent. You can't chop away the driving factor of something and just look at the result. This is what I have been saying on the topic since I started commenting on it. I give up chasing you down all these rabbit holes you go down to dodge this.

This is a typical conservative/right wing method of arguing that I see all the time, especially with demagogues like Tucker Carlson and especially Ben Shapiro. They rapid fire a bunch of irrelevant, dubious, or even completely made-up points in an argument about anything such that they still come out the victor in an argument with someone who cares about integrity of facts and addressing points. It's impossible to address a plethora of irrelevant and often factually incorrect points when they're presented without evidence and you feel compelled to address each one with actual facts. It makes it such that, even if you conclusively argue against some of the points, you'll leave many unanswered and thus presumed true by others. Often, the person themselves isn't even lying, they've just fallen victim to the same tactic and they're parroting points that their favourite talking head has spoon fed them.

Many will also take a so-called "centrist" position where they spout whataboutisms and do both-sides arguments, but conveniently only in a way that benefits the side they argue for. You'll find these people arguing that, for example, Democrats are just as bad as Republicans for any given reason. But when a topic such as Hillary Clinton's emails or Obama's civilian drone strikes come up, you'll oddly find that these so-called centrists are completely missing. They won't hop in with their enlightened statements that, really if you think about it, both sides are bad because Trump and his family did exactly the same thing with their own private email servers, or that the drone war actually escalated under Trump. If anything, they'll shout from the rooftops about how these points further prove that liberals are just as bad as conservatives. These people are extremely dangerous because you can't spot them without knowing more about the person. They implicitly argue for one side by butting in with centrist arguments in defence of their own side, while letting anything that makes their side look good or the other side look bad slide. In principle, their arguments hold water a lot of the time, but they misrepresent themselves as being centrists when really they are very much for a specific side, which manifests in them muddying specific conversations and sowing discord among a specific group.

Once you're aware of these argument styles, you'll see them everywhere. It's quite worrying how often people fall victim to them.

[BananaCucho]

lol

[Ganelon]

If they did give a shit answer me this. Why the Jim Crow laws? And why was the military segregated for a long time? I’m just saying, the North probably did away with slavery because it didn’t affect their economy much. They didn’t have many slaves to begin with; they only had indentured servants. It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it

[oops_ur_dead]

If they did give a shit answer me this. Why the Jim Crow laws? And why was the military segregated for a long time? I’m just saying, the North probably did away with slavery because it didn’t affect their economy much. They didn’t have many slaves to begin with; they only had indentured servants. It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it

Jim Crow laws and military segregation are not slavery. Nobody is claiming the north wasn't racist.

I love the statement "It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it". Probably the funniest sentence I've read in this thread. I like how we've gotten to the point where feeling empathy for enslaved people is an argument against someone's character.

[Ganelon]

Jim Crow laws and military segregation are not slavery. Nobody is claiming the north wasn't racist.

I love the statement "It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it". Probably the funniest sentence I've read in this thread. I like how we've gotten to the point where feeling empathy for enslaved people is an argument against someone's character.

I just think it’s hypocritical. All men are equal but some men are more equal than others. That kinda thing

[oops_ur_dead]

I think that's enough responding from me. Anyone who hasn't seen the point already probably isn't capable of doing so anyway.

[Ash]

If they did give a shit answer me this. Why the Jim Crow laws? And why was the military segregated for a long time? I’m just saying, the North probably did away with slavery because it didn’t affect their economy much. They didn’t have many slaves to begin with; they only had indentured servants. It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it

First of all, the North did not invent Jim Crow laws. Secondly, Abraham Lincoln wasn't even president when Jim Crow laws expanded and started affecting a majority of black people. Thirdly, the South still had black people farming their plantations even after slavery ended, through a method called sharecropping.

The reason Jim Crow laws lasted so long was most likely because upcoming presidents and political parties favored state laws, it's really that simple. It turns out that making social change in an era of extreme racism is really difficult.

The north could’ve repealed it or prevented their passing, they didn’t. I’m not saying the south wasn’t racist; in saying the north was too, and that if they had really given a shit about blacks they wouldn’t have allowed the south to pass those laws. They were probably less racist than the south, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t racist.

Again, Jim Crow laws were state laws. There is very little the Union could have done about it at the time. They just had a massive war over the ratification of the 13th Amendment. You really think they wanted another war with the amount of idiots at the time that were in favor of state rights?

Would it help if I pointed out that the Union was majority republican?.

Sir, did you know that the swastika was a symbol of peace until Hitler used it on his political platform?

[Ganelon]

First of all, the North did not invent Jim Crow laws. Secondly, Abraham Lincoln wasn't even president when Jim Crow laws expanded and started affecting a majority of black people. Thirdly, the South still had black people farming their plantations even after slavery ended, through a method called sharecropping.

They didn’t, the south did, but the north didn’t do anything to stop them.

The reason Jim Crow laws lasted so long was most likely because upcoming presidents and political parties favored state laws, it's really that simple. It turns out that making social change in an era of extreme racism is really difficult.

Fair enough. You’re right that ingrained societal attitudes such as these don’t change overnight just because you want them to. However, segregation still occurred in national areas (e.g. the military).

Again, Jim Crow laws were state laws. There is very little the Union could have done about it at the time. They just had a massive war over the ratification of the 13th Amendment. You really think they wanted another war with the amount of idiots at the time that were in favor of state rights?

That’s possible.

[rumox]

I read something describing that not too long ago lol



Mmm yes being pro abolishment cause it doesn't affect you... until your factories come to a screaming halt because the plantations stop producing the goods they require. Tariffs the federal government put in place to ensure domestic markets rather than reliance on the international market. Just because they didn't have slavery like the South doesn't mean they wouldn't have been affected by abolishing slavery, they had skin in the game too. For visual sake the British textile industry was ~60% reliant on the Souths cotton alone. Imagine how reliant the North was on it and other slave produced goods because of tariffs encouraging domestic trade. But yeah, another rabbit hole - just peaking down this one.

Pls don't @ me anymore I want off this wild ride

[Ganelon]

Sure but that doesn’t capture the entire economic situation. The south was primarily agricultural and heavily dependent on slave labour. The northern economy was not agricultural; it was most industrial and mechanized, and just because the textile industry depended on the southern slave economy, it doesn’t mean that their economy depended on it. The northern economy continued to grow after the war - showing that slavery wasn’t an integral part of it.

[Ganelon]

If you don’t think slavery wasn’t a contentious issue in the north (it was, I just don’t think it was anywhere near as contentious as it’s usually made out to be), then why do you think the North abolished slavery whilst the south didn’t?

[Ganelon]

It’s a very simple economic explanation and I don’t see how you can deny it. Many major countries had abolished slavery - France, Britain having banned it earlier than even the northern states. And the people who owned slaves in the south were primarily of British origin. I can’t see how you could say that it was anything other than economic reasons that persuaded the south (or the north, for that matter) to take the stance that they did on Slavery. You’re saying slavery cannot be disentangled from the secession war, I’m saying the economics of slavery cannot be ignored when looking at the institution of slavery in the south.

Like, the only other reason I can think of is a demographic one - there were far more blacks in the southern states than in the northern states (if I’m not mistaken, they were ~30% of the population in some states).

[oops_ur_dead]

Honestly, it also looks like you have no idea what your own points are. Look at how like 5 pages back you pointed out that the Jim Crow laws were actually evidence that the Confederacy was racist, now suddenly you're using it against the north?

Why? Isn’t it a very strong argument in favour of the confederates being essentially fundamentally founded on racist principles?

[Ganelon]

The north could’ve repealed it or prevented their passing, they didn’t. I’m not saying the south wasn’t racist; in saying the north was too, and that if they had really given a shit about blacks they wouldn’t have allowed the south to pass those laws. They were probably less racist than the south, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t racist.

[Ganelon]

Idk I don’t really have the energy but my point about abolitionism has nothing to do with empathy. I’m saying it’s easy to be in favour of personal freedom (who the fuck is in favour of slavery?) in some abstract sense, but a lot tougher to implement said belief in practice.

[Ganelon]

Its just, it is clearly an exaggeration to state that the North was all good and nice. Sure they cared about slavery to some extent, but obviously not enough to prevent the passing of Jim Crow laws, or to cease funding the American Colonization society. The North considered preservation of the Union the primary goal of the war - not slavery. Slavery wasn’t immediately abolished, and the Union had made many compromises (like the Missouri compromise) with the southern states and even gave the south extra representation due to the fact that they had slaves (slaves needed representation or something. idk the reason)

Its biased as hell. The North was racist, just less so than the south. Did the support abolition? Yes, but it wasn’t anywhere near as important to them as it’s usually made out to be.

[Ganelon]

Again, if it had been, Jim Crow laws would never have been passed in the South, and blacks would’ve had representation (they didn’t even have the right to vote in most states in the South)

[rumox]

What did I say about removing the build up and looking at only the result man. Seriously you @ me after I asked not to just to spit in what I have said time and time again. Maybe you should read the text that came before that passage. Oh wait you can't because you don't believe in context.

Seriously don't @ me I don't want to take part anymore.

[Ganelon]

I didn’t @ you
lol

[rumox]

I mean @ and quote function the same, both give the user a notification. I thought that would be obvious with what I mean by don't @ me. If I know how to turn them off for a thread I would but I don't.

[Ganelon]

Fine. I don’t mind talking about this honestly I’m kinda miffed when people tell me that I’m pushing a dogma. No shit I’m gonna ‘keep pushing’ my dogma if you say that kind of thing to me lmao. Sure, slavery was important in the North, I just think its importance is exaggerated. We can argue to what extent that is the case but it’s unfair to just ignore the economic aspect of slavery from the equation. Slavery had a great economic benefit. Did the North benefit from slavery? Probably, but they didn’t benefit from it anywhere near as much as the South did. It’s not like the northern economy shut down because of abolition, lol.

[Ganelon]

My last post was kinda dumb (the one ‘I didn’t @ you’). I knew what you meant so there was no need for it.

[Ganelon]

I mean, you’re right that the North cared about slavery but obviously when push came to shove, preserving the Union was more important to them than the issue of slavery. That’s why all the compromises with the south were forged, and that’s the light in which I’m seeing the war. A war to preserve the union. And partly to feel the slaves. Slavery was obviously not going to last forever in the south as most other countries had already done away with it.

[BananaCucho]

You guys are going in circles and no one is budging

[Ganelon]

We’re not actually going in circles. We’re arguing for similar but slightly different things and fighting over it. I am saying the United States fought the war to preserve the Union, while the confederates fought the war primarily so that they could continue to practice slavery. And that the North didn’t care THAT much about slavery, and that you can’t divorce the economic aspects of slavery from the discussion. The first states to secede were the ones that most heavily depended on slave labour. That’s no coincidence. And I’m saying the North could afford to make abolition noises because their economy wasn’t based on slavery. I just think the North was at least partly hypocritical.

[Ganelon]

Wikipedia says that the North was in favour of gradual rather than immediate abolition. This I can actually agree with it and it seems as unbiased as you can get with respect to the north’s motives, and its something I can actually get behind, myself. You can’t nust free people who’ve never known freedom their entire lives and expect them to do something. I don’t know enough about this to discuss it in any depth, but my suspicion is that freeing children first and declaring those born of slaves to be free men would be a good start.

[oops_ur_dead]

If anything, I think the Union was too easy on the Confederacy. They basically let all the traitors live out the rest of their lives on their old estates and plantations, when really they should have executed Lee and Davis and stamped out the entire pathological culture that led to the rebellion and glorification of slavery and racism. Instead they let the cancer of racism fester in the south. That's what I truly fault the Union for.

I also find it absolutely pathetic that southerners have had 160 years to find a culture and symbols that aren't the Confederacy and they still haven't been able to. I have no sympathy for them now that people are burning their traitor rags and demolishing their illegitimate landmarks and memorials when they've had so much time to find and create something else to unite around.

[Ganelon]

If anything, I think the Union was too easy on the Confederacy. They basically let all the traitors live out the rest of their lives on their old estates and plantations, when really they should have executed Lee and Davis and stamped out the entire pathological culture that led to the rebellion and glorification of slavery and racism. Instead they let the cancer of racism fester in the south. That's what I truly fault the Union for.

I also find it absolutely pathetic that southerners have had 160 years to find a culture and symbols that aren't the Confederacy and they still haven't been able to. I have no sympathy for them now that people are burning their traitor rags and demolishing their illegitimate landmarks and memorials when they've had so much time to find and create something else to unite around.

Why is the secession such a great deal to you? I believe in the right of the individual to protest, even by force of arms, against a government they consider illegitimate. It’s not as if they attempted to defect to an enemy country (Mexico or some shit). They only wanted to secede. By executing them you essentially shit on the constitution. Misguided as they were, they weren’t traitors. I have no doubt that many of them would’ve given their lives for the United States before and after the war if, say, Britain invaded via Canada, or if Mexico became revanchist and conducted a Reconquista of California.

[oops_ur_dead]

Why is the secession such a great deal to you? I believe in the right of the individual to protest, even by force of arms, against a government they consider illegitimate. It’s not as if they attempted to defect to an enemy country (Mexico or some shit). They only wanted to secede. By executing them you essentially shit on the constitution. Misguided as they were, they weren’t traitors. I have no doubt that many of them would’ve given their lives for the United States before and after the war if, say, Britain invaded via Canada, or if Mexico became revanchist and conducted a Reconquista of California.

No they were traitors that seceded to defend a racist legacy of slavery. Had they wanted to secede for another reason they'd still be traitors, but at least for a different, perhaps more honourable reason. As it stands they're traitors for the cause of upholding institutional racism and it's a shame that they were afforded so much mercy by the Union, given the impact racism had and continues to have. As I said, that's what I fault the Union for more than anything else, and the strongest argument against the Union being virtuous anti-racists.

[Ganelon]

I think the war could’ve been avoided if the Union, instead of compromising with the South by essentially ignoring slavery, had tried to reach an equitable settlement with the south by offering to shoulder at least part of the costs of the abolition and founding trade schools for slaves so that they could have economic utility as free men (and by offering slave holders money for each slave they freed). I believe gradual abolition would’ve been a very smart decision had it actually been attempted. Not only could they have avoided the war but perhaps the Jim Crow laws in the south as well, and the South would’ve had time to catch up to the rest of the country, seeing as they had untapped mineral reserves (in the appalachians, say).

I don’t know. It sounds awfully simplistic but I want to believe that war wasn’t inevitable, and I believe gradual, incremental change is fundamentally a better idea than radical change in such scenarios.

[Ganelon]

Secondly and most importantly, the traitor state known as West Virginia would not exist /s

[Ganelon]

Even disregarding that aspect, it’s seldom a good idea to execute the leaders of a rebellion. Especially one like the Confederacy. Like, in case of a communist or nazi uprising I would definitely consider execution or life imprisonment for the leaders but, the Confederacy was in no way comprabile to either of these.

Thirdly - you hate the Confederate flag but do you hate the South African flag? The one they had prior to apartheid? Nobody really ever talks about that flag but to me the flag of South Africa has literally nothing to do with Apartheid, anymore than Afrikaans (an extremely ugly language btw) does.