As for the early US flag being the wrongful one - the "United States" has changed its slave-owning ways since the 1700s, and indeed fought hard to do it. Whereas the Confederacy existed expressly for the purpose of not changing that. I think it's pretty clear which of those two groups is more directly tied to supporting human rights abuses.
Now, see? That's the sort of thing they teach in government schools. It's a tragedy, really. The Confederacy didn't exist to 'not change' slavery. In fact, if all they wanted was to not change slavery, then they could've done so easily -- slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution and the only way to amend that would have taken 36 states to outvote the 13 Confederate ones. There weren't 49 states for a long time after the Civil War. And, of course, some union states, like Maryland, were slave states.
The bizarre truth is that the Confederacy was vastly more supportive of human rights than the union. The Confederate Attorney General was Jewish, nearly a hundred years before the United States had a Jewish cabinet member. The Confederacy had full-blooded native americans in positions higher than the united states had for about a century. The union had black regiments, like the one in the movie Glory. The south had integrated regiments.
A real champion of human rights, Lincoln decided to suspend the constitution and just have anyone who wanted to run against his re-election bid put in jail without being charged with any crimes until after the election.
In fact, the very nature of the Civil war belies the idea that the union was for human rights. The southern states acted like, y'know, a democracy, and voted to pull out. The northern states decided to settle the issue by force instead.
History may be written by the winners, but that doesn't mean it's true.
