Posted on 06/21/2005 2:42:35 PM PDT by CurlyBill
Great article. Great points. Note: someone placed the word Stars & Bars for this article when the fact of the matter is that the Confederate First National Flag was the Stars & Bars. After all it actually had bars while the Confederate Battle Flag does not have bars as it was a saltire. No wonder so many people do not know the truth when they can not even get the names of the various flags right.
Great article. Great points. Note: someone placed the word Stars & Bars for this article when the fact of the matter is that the Confederate First National Flag was the Stars & Bars. Not the Confederate Battle Flag. After all it actually had bars while the Confederate Battle Flag does not have bars as it was a saltire. No wonder so many people do not know the truth when they can not even get the names of the various flags right.
The Confederate Battle Flag was known as the Southern Cross not the Stars & Bars. Northerners seem to confuse the name of the Confederate First National Flag with the Confederate Battle Flag for some reason.
The reason that the flag represents racism is that it is held up by racists as a symbol of the slavery of blacks by whites. It expresses the wish that the Confederates won the war, it is an expression of allegiance to their cause.
It wasn’t until the late 1950’s and 1960’s that the Confederate Battle Flag was used by the KKK and other “hate” groups. Those that use the flag to honor their ancestors do not promote the hate and stupid ideas that those who abuse it do
That's no excuse. There are other ways to honor your ancestors, but that flag is itself a manifestation of stupid ideas, and to say that those stupid ideas can be "abused" is absurd, since they are inherently abusive in and of themselves. You should be ashamed if your ancestors served in the Confederate Army.
The one flag that flew the longest and was actually the founder of slavery was the British Flag.
B.S. slavery was not "founded" by the British, in fact, slavery preceeded the era that they even got involved in it. I think that the Confederate flag, through the ridiculous tradition of honoring Confederate ancestors, as Confederates, has become a symbol of the South. You might be one of those people who is not racist, but was brought up to embrace that racist symbol. Al Qaeda dies fighting for what they believe in, the Nazis did too. That does not excuse them from being a part of evil.
Abraham Lincoln was the abolitionist's candidate for president. In his June 16, 1858 speech, he strongly argued that a nation could not exist "half slave and half free." Then in July 10, 1858, he addressed an audience at the Tremont Hotel in Chicago.
...but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.These are not the words and sentiments of a man that is prepared to preserve slavery permanantly. These are the words and sentiments of an American giant whose shoes you would not be fit to shine.
Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of "don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down" [Douglas's "popular sovereignty" position on the extension of slavery to the territories], for sustaining the Dred Scott decision, for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it.
...What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it!
Source, shoeshine boy?
Someone pinged me to this thread. That is why I am just now finding your post. Your are right. The South stood up for a small and undemanding central government. When it lost that fight the country became what it is today: a menace to personal freedom.
You will note that there are a number of southron supporters that insist of calling us 'boy'. They must think that all Lincoln supporters are African-American.
Note that he stated we were not fit to shine Mr. Lincoln's shoes, implying that he was.
The 'boy' part was your own idea, huh? How original.
lincoln, himself, said IN WRITING that he was WILLING to work for & sign an amendment to the CONSTITUTION to PROTECT slavery "where it now exists in perpetuity".
lincoln was ONLY a cheap,scheming, shyster lawyer & power-hungry politician, who was in no way different or more honorable than wee willie klintoon.
they were AMORAL TWINS, separated by 150+ years. EITHER/both would do ANYTHING to "get ahead". ANYTHING!
free dixie,sw
the MAIN REASON, that we fought a NEEDLESS, 4-year, bloody war, was that lincoln & his coven of FOOLS & CROOKS weren't smart enough to let the south go in PEACE & trade with the new republic.
free dixie,sw
latecomers are welcome at this party.
free dixie,sw
And John Quincy Adams, who was not as strongly opposed to the institution of slavery as President Lincoln, in 1820 wrote:
If the dissolution of the Union should result from the slave question, it is as obvious as anything that can be foreseen of futurity that it must shortly afterwards by followed by the universal emancipation of the slaves. ... Slavery is the great and foul stain upon the North American Union, and it is a contemplation worthy of the most exalted soul whether its total abolition is or is not practicable; if practicable, by what it may be effected, and if a choice of means be within the scope of the object, what means would accomplish it at the smallest cost of human suffering. A dissolution, at least temporary, of the Union, as now constituted, would be certainly necessary, and the dissolution must be upon a point involving the question of slavery and no other. The Union might then be reorganized on the fundamental principle of emancipation. This object is vast in its compass, awful in its prospects, sublime and beautiful in its issue. A life devoted to it would be nobly spent or sacrificed.The continuation of slavery wasn't enough for the Confederate cretins, they wished to expand the institution. How did one of their anti-Lincoln defenders/apologists, Stephen Douglas, put it on July 9, 1858? Oh yes, "I am free to say to you that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white man, in such manner as they should determine." President Lincoln wasn't interested in "protecting" slavery, he was interested in advancing the cause of liberty. And as for a cheap and unnecessary war, tell that to America's founders! If we're going by your "standards."
The answer to your question is that, even without the slavery issue, there would have been war. The expansion of slavery was one of many of the issues in which the Southern States felt the central government had overstepped its bounds and broken its contract with the people.
A more accurate statement would be: "If the war were about slavery alone it would not have been fought since Lincoln was willing to back a permanent form of the insitution."
I disagree with your speculation, you can't wipe away the sinful cause of the Confederates with "if there hadn't been slavery" because they fought to defend the institution. Sometimes the fight between good and evil actually manifests itself physically.
All the reasons that the ConfedeRATS made up for secession were attempts to excuse and cover up their hideous disregard and abuse of the freedom of others, while incredibly claiming to be fighting for freedom themselves!
You couldn't be more wrong. Except for a few New England abolitionists, no one, NO ONE in the North was fighting against slavery.
You could say the same of America's Founders. Sometimes it takes great men to achieve great things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.