Continued sanctions would slow the Iranians more than this deal. Now they will have a better funded program and several weeks of notice to prep a site before allowing the inspectors in, such delays are built into the terms of the treaty and there seems to be no cost to playing such games. They will play the military site / national security card as they have already done, and it will be even more effective to do so under this treaty.
We have this treaty for one reason only. The current administration wanted a "win" on their record. When crap hits the fan in the future they will blame it on the other guy. Its just like the corporate CEO who manages the company for this quarter's financial statement. Five or ten years down the road will be some other CEOs problem. I guess the President is learning some management skills with his on-the-job executive training.
Editing videos to remove information that doesn't fit his desired portrayal of events, absolutely distorting the true context of events.
He edited a leaked video, which the US Government had claimed did not exist. The events in the video where not as important as the exposure of the lies.
The fact remains that he is willing to lie in his work.
So does Assange, that's why he edits things to remove inconvenient truths, to portray things as he wishes them to be seen. To both the US gov and Assange the truth is only sacred when it coincidentally fits their agenda.
Well he's shown that he is willing to lie in his work also. Editing videos to remove information that doesn't fit his desired portrayal of events, absolutely distorting the true context of events.
The traditional labeling of northern, middle and southern dates back to the original 13 colonies. Maryland southern, Delaware middle. New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey being the other middle states and definitely part of the 1804 group that had gone abolition or was phasing in abolition. Kentucky was carved out of Virginia which had expanded its borders west. So I guess we can say all northern and middle states, except Delaware, had decided to abolished slavery by 1804.
The "debate" over "southern" is in some cases a post-war perspective. A rejection by some southerners of their southern neighbors who remained loyal to the Union, rejecting them as not "true southerners".
But yeah Union is not strictly northern. Lets also toss in West Virginia which I think was carved from a region of Virginia that remained loyal to the Union. And the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel territory.
The documents and statements written at the time of secession were all about slavery.
Just like the documents and statements made at the time of the Iraqi War were all about Iraq supporting al-Qaeda and having Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Poor analogy. The documents and statements being referred to were written by the states seceding and the confederate government, not folks in Washington DC. The documents we have are self-incrimination, not outsider claims. Go read the secession documents if you dare intellectual honestly.
The plain truth is that by 1804 all Northern states had decided to abolish slavery, some immediately, some phased it out over time. The North hoped the South would follow their lead. Instead, the South wanted to perpetuate slavery indefinitely and to expand it into new territories. The North's acceptance of slavery in existing slave states was a grudging concession to preserve unity and avoid war.
So no, you are mistaken with the idea that the North was not much better. It was not perfect, its hands were not clean, but it was much better.
As for the confederate battle flag. It is the flag of an army that was the force of arms that a government used to defend and perpetuate the institution of slavery. Whatever an individual Johnny Reb may have held as an opinion or belief, the preceding truth does not change. That flag is a symbol of the defense and perpetuation of slavery. Furthermore in the civil rights era of the 1960s that flag was resurrected as a symbol of support for segregation. So in the original context the flag represent institutional slavery and white supremacy and in the modern context it still represented white supremacy.
You know that the North owned slaves throughout the war, right? The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the South. There were a lot of reasons the Civil War happened, but "it was all about slavery!" isn't true.
Actually you got the Emancipation Proclamation wrong. As I mentioned in several posts its only freed slaves in rebel held territory. It did not apply to regions of the South under Union control.
In any case your logic is terribly terribly flawed. The North did not initiate the war. The South decided to secede and to start the war (firing on Fort Sumter) and the Southern leadership that made these decisions was absolutely motivated by the defense and preservation and expansion of the institution of slavery.
There were violent debates in Congress prior to the war regarding the expansion of slavery into the territories. The North wanting to confine slavery to existing slave states, the South wanting to expand slavery into the territories and even require that half of new states admitted to the Union be slave states. The South's primary state's rights argument was that the North was not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. At least one, maybe more, of the secession declarations cited the election of Lincoln and his secret "abolitionist leanings", as if US Presidents were required to be pro-slavery. Numerous secession declaration explicitly and unambiguously lists the defense and preservation of slavery as a main cause.
The South decided upon secession and war and that decision was based on protecting their wealth and power and economy that was based upon the institution of slavery.
I'm not sure either Snowden or Assange could live in France in safety anyway. France is subject to European Arrest Warrants. Snowden might be safe from those but if I were him I'd prefer a country like Iceland.
France granted asylum to convicted fugitive child rapist Roman Polanski. The victim was 13 years old. After pleading guilty he fled to France before sentencing. No US and European arrest warrant interfered with his 30+ year stay in France.
It is a well known tenet of software engineering that sometimes you just have to accept that a software product has come to the end of its useful life. That it is so bloated and kludged up and incomprehensible that a complete rewrite is warranted rather than ongoing extension and maintenance of the existing mess.
Oh, but surely, Obama, our fearless defender of all that is good and just, Constitutional scholar and gentleman, would never, ever resort to such methods!
Actually Obama does not lean towards capture and extraction, he leans towards assassination via drones. Capture and extract was the previous guy.
One does not get the new French identity paperwork and right to live in France until after one has served a complete tour in the Legion and been honorably discharged. There are no political or celebrity postings to the Legion. The French take the Legion really f'ing serious. Its training is no joke, its effectively at a special forces level. The reason the French take the Legion so serious is because it is a highly capable force that can be deployed without domestic political consequences, it foreigners not French kids, in particular French conscripts. They would not f' with the Legion's esprit de corps for Assange.
Imagine two US Ranger brigades (7,000'ish men) that the President of the US could send anywhere around the globe without domestic political consequences. That is effectively what France has.
Nobody is outlawing anything. This is an example of a business choosing not to publish something.
Yes but is there any discretion applied or is it a complete ban? Declining to publish a racing game with a car with a big confederate flag on it is one thing. Declining to publish a military strategy game that uses a historical setting like Gettysburg where Confederate troops on the field of battle are carrying a Confederate flag is something else.
In other words is there any consideration for historical context and historically accurate use?
If a business chooses not to sell something, there is no legal mechanism to compel them to justify their decision.
Did anyone say otherwise? Note that the above is merely asking if Apple is applying any discretion? Such discretion would be obvious based upon whether games that are historical and display the flag only in a clearly historical context are still available.
The civil war wasn't about slavery in the sense that it was for black's rights and freedoms.
Of course. The North was perfectly willing to allow slavery to remain in existing slave states to avoid the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to rebel held territory. The framing of the war by the North around the morality of slavery was a strategy to keep the British from aiding the confederates. And so on...
It was about the economics of slavery and states rights. Saying the war was over slavery is a misguided attempt to make the civil war look like good vs evil. At the time, both the North and South were racist. The civil war was a fight over the distribution of power and wealth in the country. When you shine it in that light, neither side looks good.
The fact that the Union was not "good" does not change the fact that the confederacy was "evil". Again, its various secession documents clearly state defending the institution of slavery as a main cause. You mention state's rights, do you know what state's rights meant to the confederacy? Their main state's rights grievance was that the fugitive slave laws were not being enforced. Plus there was the hypocrisy of expecting half the state's entering the Union to be slave states, what, the population of the territory doesn't have the right to decide? That's not very respectful of state's rights. State's rights was a misdirection to help get Johnny Reb to enlist in the army that was formed to defend the institution of slavery. Johnny probably wouldn't have volunteered without that and other misdirections, slavery usually being something he wasn't willing to risk his life over.
The Civil War was absolutely about slavery. It was the foundation of Southern wealth and power and the political class decided to secede and go to war to defend that source of wealth and power. The bitter fights in Congress were about the expansion of slavery into new territories. The South desperately wanting to maintain an equilibrium between the number of slave and non-slave states. The North wanting to confine slavery to existing slave states. The South going as far as wanting to require half of new states being admitted to be slave states. They opposed local self determination knowing the long term trend was against them. They cited Lincoln's election as a cause for secession because he had "abolitionist leanings", can't have a President who is not pro slavery?
The decision to secede and go to war was made by the South and that decision was firmly rooted in the defense and perpetuation of slavery. That is indisputable. No moral failings of the North changes this fact. Neither does the personal opinions and beliefs of an individual Johnny Reb change the fact that he volunteered for an army that existed to defend and perpetuate the institution of slavery. How the war was framed and sold to him does not change why secession and war were decided upon.
Barney the Dinosaur fucked it up for a whole generation. Thank god he's dead so the cancer doesn't spread.
Ever see a bunch of cops grabbing guns and ammunition and hurrying to their cars? I have. It wasn't a riot or other incident. It was the day when it was announced that the shooting range just received purple Barney silhouette targets. All of a sudden everyone seemed to need some time on the practice range. Ever see grown men singing a Barney song in unison while firing their weapons. I have, its unforgettable. Guys had to put their gun down and step back from the firing line to take a laugh break. Sadly it was before cellphones with cameras.
The consequences of a mistake in re-engineering Earth's climate are considerably higher than on Mars.
Yes, that's why you do small scale things first. Things that are transitory like cloud seeding to reflect sunlight. It takes a substantial effort to screw things ups. We didn't get to the current situation through a few small or medium scale experiments.
Plus there is really no alternative. Greening the economy/industry won't happen in time. Demand for power will increase as billions enter the middle class and demand their little luxuries and status symbols. You can wish and wish and wish that solar and wind could scale to meet this demand but it won't, not in time. Better get used to the idea that we need to figure out how to make some temporary shade and reflect more sunlight out of the atmosphere.
Dihydrogen monoxide is dangerous to children. It is a leading cause of accidental death. Children should be supervised when immersed in it. And absolutely beware of electron flows when immersed, both children and adults.
Can we at least learn all about the planet in detail before we go destroyi... i mean "modifying" it?
Terraforming will most likely take centuries. There's plenty of time to study the barren rocks and their chemistry.
Now if they are not barren, some delay for additional study time may be warranted.
Personally I think we'll see habitats on moons and asteroids before we see planet wide terraforming. The economics of various activities and industries may prefer low G / micro G. There will probably be plenty of time for scientific expeditions to the gravity wells during all this.
It seems to me that it would be far easier to adapt ourselves to Mars by modifying our genetics than to change the characteristics of an entire planet.
The point is not having mars support some sort of life. The point is so that we (literally us, or our descendants) can go there. Given a sufficient amount of genetic tinkering and you have something that is not "us", and mars would seem to require quite a bit of tinkering.
Is it also fair to say the revisionist history started when the Union determined that the Southern States had not seceded, only to demand they make certain concessions in order to be readmitted to the Union when the war had ended, ultimately resulting in the phenomenon of carpetbaggers?
The confederacy engaged in armed rebellion. Their defeat ended in military occupation. Their natural leadership mostly legally guilty of treason. The end of military occupation, the large scale pardoning of confederate leaders and officers so that they could hold governmental offices and positions, required these concession.
I'm skeptical of any authoritative declaration that insinuates a moral high ground on the part of the Union.
Actually the authoritative declaration is on of a moral low ground for the confederacy.
There were plenty of small farms with 3-4 slaves, particularly in the more northern areas of the south.
Did something about
"generally not"
in
"The confederate 99% didn't make the decision to go to war, you are partially correct that they were generally not economically vested in slavery and most likely not willing to risk their lives to defend slavery. "
confuse you?
Except for some officers, virtually none of the Confederate soldiers who lost their live in battle were slave owners. The struggle was really about the right to secede, even though the political class who created the CSA had certain motives involving slavery.
The right to secede was only considered necessary in order to protect slavery. The northern aggression was the move towards nation-wide abolition. State's rights did not include the right to decide if a state will be slave or not, half the states added to the union must be slave states. Except for possibly loyalty to one's citizenship, which in those days was often considered state based not national based - even in the north, nearly every "cause" cited for the war was just camouflage for slavery or just a misdirection to get Johnny Reb to enlist.
Again, it doesn't really matter what the personal opinions and motivations of Johnny Reb may have been. He volunteered for an army that was created to protect a government that in turn was created to protect the institution of slavery. The army is the instrument which through force of arms slavery was to be protected. Service in such an army inherently protects slavery. The army's flag inherently symbolizes the protection of slavery.
Plus there is also the racist thing. Racism was common north an south, but some poor whites in the south took some satisfaction that there was a permanent slave underclass beneath them. Some willing to fight to maintain their elevated status, legal equality for the "negroe" something they could not personally accept. This continued after the war with the "night riders" and KKK, and admittedly some took up this fight outside of confederate territory. And when these folks wanted a symbol of white superiority and racism in the 1960s during the civil rights movement where did they turn? The confederate flag, it already represented white superiority and control over the "negroe race". Going from a symbol for the defense of slavery to a symbol for the defense of segregation was a small step.
It's no the fault of the flag that the asshole who committed the heinous crime in Charleston wrapped himself in it. Would you feel different about the star-spangled banner if he used it instead of the confederate flag?
What the confederate flag represented in the 1860s, the 1960s and today in 2015 is the same thing. We have 150 years of murderers wrapping themselves in that flag for a very appropriate reason.
Slashdot Mirror
Continued sanctions would slow the Iranians more than this deal. Now they will have a better funded program and several weeks of notice to prep a site before allowing the inspectors in, such delays are built into the terms of the treaty and there seems to be no cost to playing such games. They will play the military site / national security card as they have already done, and it will be even more effective to do so under this treaty.
We have this treaty for one reason only. The current administration wanted a "win" on their record. When crap hits the fan in the future they will blame it on the other guy. Its just like the corporate CEO who manages the company for this quarter's financial statement. Five or ten years down the road will be some other CEOs problem. I guess the President is learning some management skills with his on-the-job executive training.
Editing videos to remove information that doesn't fit his desired portrayal of events, absolutely distorting the true context of events.
He edited a leaked video, which the US Government had claimed did not exist. The events in the video where not as important as the exposure of the lies.
The fact remains that he is willing to lie in his work.
The USGOV fears truth.
So does Assange, that's why he edits things to remove inconvenient truths, to portray things as he wishes them to be seen. To both the US gov and Assange the truth is only sacred when it coincidentally fits their agenda.
What about his work ?
Well he's shown that he is willing to lie in his work also. Editing videos to remove information that doesn't fit his desired portrayal of events, absolutely distorting the true context of events.
The traditional labeling of northern, middle and southern dates back to the original 13 colonies. Maryland southern, Delaware middle. New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey being the other middle states and definitely part of the 1804 group that had gone abolition or was phasing in abolition. Kentucky was carved out of Virginia which had expanded its borders west. So I guess we can say all northern and middle states, except Delaware, had decided to abolished slavery by 1804.
The "debate" over "southern" is in some cases a post-war perspective. A rejection by some southerners of their southern neighbors who remained loyal to the Union, rejecting them as not "true southerners".
But yeah Union is not strictly northern. Lets also toss in West Virginia which I think was carved from a region of Virginia that remained loyal to the Union. And the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebel territory.
Just like the documents and statements made at the time of the Iraqi War were all about Iraq supporting al-Qaeda and having Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Poor analogy. The documents and statements being referred to were written by the states seceding and the confederate government, not folks in Washington DC. The documents we have are self-incrimination, not outsider claims. Go read the secession documents if you dare intellectual honestly.
The plain truth is that by 1804 all Northern states had decided to abolish slavery, some immediately, some phased it out over time. The North hoped the South would follow their lead. Instead, the South wanted to perpetuate slavery indefinitely and to expand it into new territories. The North's acceptance of slavery in existing slave states was a grudging concession to preserve unity and avoid war.
So no, you are mistaken with the idea that the North was not much better. It was not perfect, its hands were not clean, but it was much better.
As for the confederate battle flag. It is the flag of an army that was the force of arms that a government used to defend and perpetuate the institution of slavery. Whatever an individual Johnny Reb may have held as an opinion or belief, the preceding truth does not change. That flag is a symbol of the defense and perpetuation of slavery. Furthermore in the civil rights era of the 1960s that flag was resurrected as a symbol of support for segregation. So in the original context the flag represent institutional slavery and white supremacy and in the modern context it still represented white supremacy.
You know that the North owned slaves throughout the war, right? The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the South. There were a lot of reasons the Civil War happened, but "it was all about slavery!" isn't true.
Actually you got the Emancipation Proclamation wrong. As I mentioned in several posts its only freed slaves in rebel held territory. It did not apply to regions of the South under Union control.
In any case your logic is terribly terribly flawed. The North did not initiate the war. The South decided to secede and to start the war (firing on Fort Sumter) and the Southern leadership that made these decisions was absolutely motivated by the defense and preservation and expansion of the institution of slavery.
There were violent debates in Congress prior to the war regarding the expansion of slavery into the territories. The North wanting to confine slavery to existing slave states, the South wanting to expand slavery into the territories and even require that half of new states admitted to the Union be slave states. The South's primary state's rights argument was that the North was not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. At least one, maybe more, of the secession declarations cited the election of Lincoln and his secret "abolitionist leanings", as if US Presidents were required to be pro-slavery. Numerous secession declaration explicitly and unambiguously lists the defense and preservation of slavery as a main cause.
The South decided upon secession and war and that decision was based on protecting their wealth and power and economy that was based upon the institution of slavery.
I'm not sure either Snowden or Assange could live in France in safety anyway. France is subject to European Arrest Warrants. Snowden might be safe from those but if I were him I'd prefer a country like Iceland.
France granted asylum to convicted fugitive child rapist Roman Polanski. The victim was 13 years old. After pleading guilty he fled to France before sentencing. No US and European arrest warrant interfered with his 30+ year stay in France.
It is a well known tenet of software engineering that sometimes you just have to accept that a software product has come to the end of its useful life. That it is so bloated and kludged up and incomprehensible that a complete rewrite is warranted rather than ongoing extension and maintenance of the existing mess.
Sort of like the IRS regulations.
Oh, but surely, Obama, our fearless defender of all that is good and just, Constitutional scholar and gentleman, would never, ever resort to such methods!
Actually Obama does not lean towards capture and extraction, he leans towards assassination via drones. Capture and extract was the previous guy.
One does not get the new French identity paperwork and right to live in France until after one has served a complete tour in the Legion and been honorably discharged. There are no political or celebrity postings to the Legion. The French take the Legion really f'ing serious. Its training is no joke, its effectively at a special forces level. The reason the French take the Legion so serious is because it is a highly capable force that can be deployed without domestic political consequences, it foreigners not French kids, in particular French conscripts. They would not f' with the Legion's esprit de corps for Assange.
Imagine two US Ranger brigades (7,000'ish men) that the President of the US could send anywhere around the globe without domestic political consequences. That is effectively what France has.
Nobody is outlawing anything. This is an example of a business choosing not to publish something.
Yes but is there any discretion applied or is it a complete ban? Declining to publish a racing game with a car with a big confederate flag on it is one thing. Declining to publish a military strategy game that uses a historical setting like Gettysburg where Confederate troops on the field of battle are carrying a Confederate flag is something else. In other words is there any consideration for historical context and historically accurate use?
If a business chooses not to sell something, there is no legal mechanism to compel them to justify their decision.
Did anyone say otherwise? Note that the above is merely asking if Apple is applying any discretion? Such discretion would be obvious based upon whether games that are historical and display the flag only in a clearly historical context are still available.
The civil war wasn't about slavery in the sense that it was for black's rights and freedoms.
Of course. The North was perfectly willing to allow slavery to remain in existing slave states to avoid the war. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to rebel held territory. The framing of the war by the North around the morality of slavery was a strategy to keep the British from aiding the confederates. And so on ...
It was about the economics of slavery and states rights. Saying the war was over slavery is a misguided attempt to make the civil war look like good vs evil. At the time, both the North and South were racist. The civil war was a fight over the distribution of power and wealth in the country. When you shine it in that light, neither side looks good.
The fact that the Union was not "good" does not change the fact that the confederacy was "evil". Again, its various secession documents clearly state defending the institution of slavery as a main cause. You mention state's rights, do you know what state's rights meant to the confederacy? Their main state's rights grievance was that the fugitive slave laws were not being enforced. Plus there was the hypocrisy of expecting half the state's entering the Union to be slave states, what, the population of the territory doesn't have the right to decide? That's not very respectful of state's rights. State's rights was a misdirection to help get Johnny Reb to enlist in the army that was formed to defend the institution of slavery. Johnny probably wouldn't have volunteered without that and other misdirections, slavery usually being something he wasn't willing to risk his life over.
The Civil War was absolutely about slavery. It was the foundation of Southern wealth and power and the political class decided to secede and go to war to defend that source of wealth and power. The bitter fights in Congress were about the expansion of slavery into new territories. The South desperately wanting to maintain an equilibrium between the number of slave and non-slave states. The North wanting to confine slavery to existing slave states. The South going as far as wanting to require half of new states being admitted to be slave states. They opposed local self determination knowing the long term trend was against them. They cited Lincoln's election as a cause for secession because he had "abolitionist leanings", can't have a President who is not pro slavery?
The decision to secede and go to war was made by the South and that decision was firmly rooted in the defense and perpetuation of slavery. That is indisputable. No moral failings of the North changes this fact. Neither does the personal opinions and beliefs of an individual Johnny Reb change the fact that he volunteered for an army that existed to defend and perpetuate the institution of slavery. How the war was framed and sold to him does not change why secession and war were decided upon.
Well, its the hippies, not necessarily baby boomers in general.
Barney the Dinosaur fucked it up for a whole generation. Thank god he's dead so the cancer doesn't spread.
Ever see a bunch of cops grabbing guns and ammunition and hurrying to their cars? I have. It wasn't a riot or other incident. It was the day when it was announced that the shooting range just received purple Barney silhouette targets. All of a sudden everyone seemed to need some time on the practice range. Ever see grown men singing a Barney song in unison while firing their weapons. I have, its unforgettable. Guys had to put their gun down and step back from the firing line to take a laugh break. Sadly it was before cellphones with cameras.
The consequences of a mistake in re-engineering Earth's climate are considerably higher than on Mars.
Yes, that's why you do small scale things first. Things that are transitory like cloud seeding to reflect sunlight. It takes a substantial effort to screw things ups. We didn't get to the current situation through a few small or medium scale experiments.
Plus there is really no alternative. Greening the economy/industry won't happen in time. Demand for power will increase as billions enter the middle class and demand their little luxuries and status symbols. You can wish and wish and wish that solar and wind could scale to meet this demand but it won't, not in time. Better get used to the idea that we need to figure out how to make some temporary shade and reflect more sunlight out of the atmosphere.
Insert obligatory dihydrogen monoxide reference.
Dihydrogen monoxide is dangerous to children. It is a leading cause of accidental death. Children should be supervised when immersed in it. And absolutely beware of electron flows when immersed, both children and adults.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/
So the non-slavery justifications include:
State's rights - Namely the north not respecting the southern states rights to have fugitive slaves returned.
Other - Includes having a President with suspected abolitionist leanings, can't have a President that is not pro-slavery.
Can we at least learn all about the planet in detail before we go destroyi... i mean "modifying" it?
Terraforming will most likely take centuries. There's plenty of time to study the barren rocks and their chemistry.
Now if they are not barren, some delay for additional study time may be warranted.
Personally I think we'll see habitats on moons and asteroids before we see planet wide terraforming. The economics of various activities and industries may prefer low G / micro G. There will probably be plenty of time for scientific expeditions to the gravity wells during all this.
It seems to me that it would be far easier to adapt ourselves to Mars by modifying our genetics than to change the characteristics of an entire planet.
The point is not having mars support some sort of life. The point is so that we (literally us, or our descendants) can go there. Given a sufficient amount of genetic tinkering and you have something that is not "us", and mars would seem to require quite a bit of tinkering.
Is it also fair to say the revisionist history started when the Union determined that the Southern States had not seceded, only to demand they make certain concessions in order to be readmitted to the Union when the war had ended, ultimately resulting in the phenomenon of carpetbaggers?
The confederacy engaged in armed rebellion. Their defeat ended in military occupation. Their natural leadership mostly legally guilty of treason. The end of military occupation, the large scale pardoning of confederate leaders and officers so that they could hold governmental offices and positions, required these concession.
I'm skeptical of any authoritative declaration that insinuates a moral high ground on the part of the Union.
Actually the authoritative declaration is on of a moral low ground for the confederacy.
There were plenty of small farms with 3-4 slaves, particularly in the more northern areas of the south.
Did something about
"generally not"
in
"The confederate 99% didn't make the decision to go to war, you are partially correct that they were generally not economically vested in slavery and most likely not willing to risk their lives to defend slavery. "
confuse you?
Yeah, I recall reading such arguments from history. Thanks for the reminder.
Except for some officers, virtually none of the Confederate soldiers who lost their live in battle were slave owners. The struggle was really about the right to secede, even though the political class who created the CSA had certain motives involving slavery.
The right to secede was only considered necessary in order to protect slavery. The northern aggression was the move towards nation-wide abolition. State's rights did not include the right to decide if a state will be slave or not, half the states added to the union must be slave states. Except for possibly loyalty to one's citizenship, which in those days was often considered state based not national based - even in the north, nearly every "cause" cited for the war was just camouflage for slavery or just a misdirection to get Johnny Reb to enlist.
Again, it doesn't really matter what the personal opinions and motivations of Johnny Reb may have been. He volunteered for an army that was created to protect a government that in turn was created to protect the institution of slavery. The army is the instrument which through force of arms slavery was to be protected. Service in such an army inherently protects slavery. The army's flag inherently symbolizes the protection of slavery.
Plus there is also the racist thing. Racism was common north an south, but some poor whites in the south took some satisfaction that there was a permanent slave underclass beneath them. Some willing to fight to maintain their elevated status, legal equality for the "negroe" something they could not personally accept. This continued after the war with the "night riders" and KKK, and admittedly some took up this fight outside of confederate territory. And when these folks wanted a symbol of white superiority and racism in the 1960s during the civil rights movement where did they turn? The confederate flag, it already represented white superiority and control over the "negroe race". Going from a symbol for the defense of slavery to a symbol for the defense of segregation was a small step.
It's no the fault of the flag that the asshole who committed the heinous crime in Charleston wrapped himself in it. Would you feel different about the star-spangled banner if he used it instead of the confederate flag?
What the confederate flag represented in the 1860s, the 1960s and today in 2015 is the same thing. We have 150 years of murderers wrapping themselves in that flag for a very appropriate reason.