@Liguofreak
Thank you for an intelligent and finely written response.
It seems to be a general supposition that the War-between-the-States was "about slavery." This is accurate, to some considerable extent, but it is also an oversimplification. There were, generally, significant cultural differences, and political rivalry, between the mostly agrarian southern States and notably industrial northern States, and these had manifested themselves in various political conflicts, since the beginning of the USA.
In any case, the Civil War was greatly significant not only because it resulted in the abolition of slavery. It also resulted in an essential change in the nature of the USA, from a voluntary union to a mandatory one. The consequences of this change, have been profound - virtually an end to the concept of practical Federalism. Currently, the U.S. government is enormously powerful in exerting its influence over the several States, in virtually any matter at all. Not only does the federal government really not even bother to consider, anymore, whether its laws are Constitutionally authorized, but even to the extent that it purports to do so, its methods of doing so, tend to be specious and cynical.
As one example, current Democratic Party Vice-Presidential candidate Joseph Biden is particularly noteworthy for his creation of the "Violence Against Women Act." Disregarding whether such a federal law was necessary, when all States already prohibit violent crimes, and the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to address only the crimes of piracy, treason and counterfeiting, nevertheless this law, like many others, was purported to be justified under the federal government's authority to "regulate interstate commerce," with a bizarrely far-fetched explanation of how "prohibiting violence against women" is "regulating interstate commerce."
Additionally, a particularly widely-used methodology by which the federal government enforces its will throughout the States, is to threaten to withold federal funds for various things, unless State legislatures enact laws that the federal government wishes (one can further question what Constitutional authority the federal government has, to distribute such funds in the first place).
Anyway, the point is that the no-longer-voluntary association among the States, resulting from the Civil War, leaves little if any recourse for their citizens to oppose the arrogance of the federal government. Symbolic rebellion can be a poor substitute, and this may include a reverent observance of the historical idea of independence, of States.
I have personally mixed-feelings, about it all. I am happy for the persistence of the Union, while recognizing the great harm to the ideals of the USA, that resulted from the methodology by which it was achieved - as I am similarly happy for the circumstances, cultural and wrt national security, resulting from the fact that the USA stretches "from sea to shining sea," while recognizing the historical, ethical problem of near-genocide of American Indians, that enabled those circumstances.
I can acknowledge and respect your perspective, regarding the inherent implication of "disloyalty," wrt displays of the Confederate flag (and similar sentiments among southerners). As an interesting coincidence, I finally got around to watching, last night, an episode of the TV show "Boston Legal" (btw, it occurs to me that William Shatner has turned out to be quite an excellent comedic actor) that I had recorded last May - which episode included a subplot in which the town of Concord, MA sought to pursue a legal claim to secede from the USA. This plot device resulted in some thought provoking dialog considering attitudes on both sides of an idea of political secession - including an inclination to take offense at such "disloyalty."
Basically, the Confederate flag does not bother me. I do not regard it as a symbol of slavery, and I have no more inclination to regard it as "disloyal," or otherwise "offensive," than I would regard black people in America wearing traditional African clothing. It is a cultural expression that I think that I can understand and, in itself, it is not objectionable. Even if it were, I could tolerate it as well as any other symbol of dissent or protest, and I recognize that it may not even be that, but merely a representation of historical veneration. You may recall that one of the most honored (by even his adversaries) military figures in U.S. history was Gen. Robert E. Lee, who - as far as I know - did not even own any slaves, was offered command of the Union armies and declined in favor of loyalty to his home State of Virginia. In fact, slave owners were a very small fraction of the population of the Confederate States, and of their armies (which even included many black people, who regarded themselves as fighting not for slavery, but for their homes and their neighbors).
I can respect the opinions of those who disagree with "Confederate sentiments," but I do not suppose that they are justified in seeking coercively to suppress such sentiments and their symbols, or even arguing, as you do, that those who hold such sentiments, are morally obliged to suppress themselves. I suppose that I would agree with you that the Confederate flag is an inappriate symbol for display at U.S. citizenship-induction ceremonies, and perhaps in some other circumstances (although I suppose that the same could be said about the display of individual State flags, in such circumstances).
