"It involved secession, but that's not really what people are interested in here. I mean, it's interesting that they are flying a flag of treason, but most people are more worried about the racial connotation, and the war provides at the very least the seeds of that connotation. You can't really divorce the secession of the south from the reason they seceded. The American reason for secession wasn't inherently fucked up at its core"

In my opinion, the reason for American succession was that the colonials wanted to have their cake and eat it to; They were a protectorate that dragged their protector into a war after said protector specifically said "No" and then rebelled when their protector handed them the bill in the form of taxes. Can it be considered a moral basis for secession? Of course, but so can the souths. While we all find fault in the morality of the social policies of the CSA or not, they were seceding because they wanted greater control over or rather a lack of interference with their own social policies and its implementation. That one of these policies was slavery that was in debate at the time doesn't, in my opinion, invalidate their secession.

"So long as the government isn't involved at any level in banning private use, we're cherry. Apple will continue doing embarrassing shit because that's mostly what they are about, really"

I was referring to a comment that one state was discussing a fee for its usage, which is basically a fine for flying it. I consider a state government to still be a government, I am remarkably concerned of the implications because, at the risk of making a slippery slope argument, once you ban one symbol you set a precedent for the banning of symbols.