Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

via e-mail | Thursday, July 9, 2015 | Chuck Baldwin

[rlmorel]

I think you are correct. I don’t recall having a cross word with him/her over the years, but there you have it.

This brings out the worst in some people.

[DiogenesLamp]

The claim that the Union fought the war to abolish slavery is the only fig leaf they have to justify what horrible bloodshed they caused.

Still pushing that lie I see.

It's not a lie. The Union fought the South because the South decided to become independent of Washington D.C.

The Union didn't care about Slavery, or else it would have stamped it out in it's own slave states. The Supply lines would have been shorter, you know.

[rockrr]

Of course it’s a lie. The Union fought the South because the South went to war against the north.

[DoodleDawg]

could be, but since I posted the article to back up my claim, stop the straw man argument, okay?

And only in the Confederate world are facts and figures considered "strawman arguments". It was your damned claim. I posted figures that questioned the logic of such a ridiculous figure. And you post more crap without any sources at all. It's almost like when you get called on one wild claim your solution is to post even more wild ones. Like this one:

Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city."

So again, let's look at the figures. In 1860, there were 10,689 free blacks in New Orleans and the claim is that 3000, or 28% of them, owned slaves. Well that percentage has to be wrong right from the beginning because that figure of 10,669 is free blacks of all ages, from under age 1 up to over 100. So if you reduce that to just adults over 19 then the number of free blacks is 5,550. So what you really want us to believe is that 54.1% of all free black adults in New Orleans owned slaves. Really? But wait a minute, it's highly likely that most of those men were married to most of those women. So at one extreme that would mean there were 3000 black slave owners but only 2,775 free black families. More slave owners than families to own them. How much sense does that make? And even at the other extreme it would mean that close to every free black family and every free black male or female owned a slave. That makes even less sense.

And if that wasn't crazy enough, in a city and Parish that had a total free population of 160,007, free blacks made up about 6.7% of that total. Adult blacks made up about 3.5%. But of the total number of 4,169 slave holders you want us to believe that less than 4% of the population comprised 72% of all slave owners. Does that make any sense at all to you?

Short answer is that no, it makes no sense at all. But that doesn't matter to the hard-core Confederate supporter like yourself because I've come to the conclusion that you all will believe literally anything, no matter how crazy or idiotic or improbable, if it makes Lincoln and the Union look bad or the Confederate noble and holy.

Here's my source. Feel free to check my math.

I cant find that 50% on line in any history, but to a man, they were all taught it in SC where I live.

If that's what they're teaching then I think it's more a condemnation of your school system than anything else. Not only is your history crazy but your math really stinks.

[Tzfat]

From Ward Lamon's memoirs (Lincoln's body guard):

After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest. Then arose the question of service. Who should make the arrest and where should the imprisonment be? This was done by the President with instructions to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders from him.

From Chief Justice Taney's autobiography (unfinished) after the Merryman ruling:

..."left the house of his son-in-law, Mr. Campbell" en route to his courtroom "remarked that it was likely he should be imprisoned in Fort McHenry before night, but that he was going to Court to do his duty."

But you are free to continue to worship your god, Lincoln. Clearly, the history books have been written and rewritten to deify the tyrant.

[golux]

I wish to say only that I am deeply honored that you should post a link to someone else’s writing three gloriously drunken times in this forum. It is a sign of off-handed, uninterested bravery and I wish to congratulate you and ALL uninterested uneducated and most heroic parties in this bold endeavor.

[RaceBannon]

well, back handed graciousness surely makes you outshine the others

but, we need to hear the full story, not the revisionist history

I been living here in Dixie for 4.5 years

the most decent people I ever met, and I am not even against the flag, despite it being the flag of the enemy that killed my cousin

but this suthron rebirth nonsense is for fools who ignore history and their own politicians words

[DoodleDawg]

No problem. Here ya go.

The claim is that Lincoln arrested the entire legislature. The fact is, and it's supported by your article, is only a part of the legislature was arrested. Figures I've seen were fourteen or fifteen legislators and staff. Hardly all of them, fewer than a quarter of all legislators. Source

[DoodleDawg]

Beside being on the same forum, we have nothing in common.

I have to agree with that. And I'm thankful for it.

[RaceBannon]

not my school system, south carolina school system

the land where this all happened

[DoodleDawg]

But you are free to continue to worship your god, Lincoln. Clearly, the history books have been written and rewritten to deify the tyrant.

And you are free to believe any tale that strikes your fancy. One thing I've noticed is that facts and figures mean nothing to any of you.

I've read "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers" by James F. Simon and "Without Fear or Favor: A Biography of Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney" by Walker Lewis and neither biographer even mentions a plot to arrest the Chief Justice. I had never even heard of the accusation until I wandered into the Civil War threads here. So you would have us believe that not one, but two biographers deliberately left such an important part of Taney's history out of their books? OK.

[X Fretensis]

Not sure I would use “misguided”. IMO Lincoln was naïve to the growing Southern nationalism and it influence on Davis, Pickens and other involved.

[rockrr]

Naïve is better ;’)

[Team Cuda]

So, let’s be very clear about this. The United States did not fight the Civil War to end slavery. If I was unclear on this point, I apologize. Abraham Lincoln was very clear on this point. The United States was fighting to maintain the Union. They continued to allow slavery in those states that had it. This point is not in contention at all. The United States was not hypocritical about this as the issue of slavery was not the main reason they fought at all.

The real question is, why did the South secede? Your statement is “Their reasons for leaving are irrelevant to their right to do so. Did they have the right to leave as espoused by the Declaration of Independence? Did they have that right?” It appears that you’re implying that the ruling elite in the South just woke up one day and decided to secede, just because they thought they had the right to do so, with no reason at all.
Regardless of whether they had the right to secede or not, I do think the reason that they chose to exercise that right, and get 600,000 some Americans killed in the process is important. Why did they decide to do it, Why? Why? Why? What a mystery. Fortunately, it’s not a mystery. The seceding States listed their reasons in the various Articles of Secession that each state wrote. If you read these Articles, the reason is not mysterious at all. The main, and virtually, only reason given is the defense of slavery. They do dress it up a little by talking about their right to secede, but the reason they chose to exercise this right is not unclear at all.

So, if the people that actually seceded stated, very clearly and publicly, that the reason to secede was the defense of slavery, how can you say that it was something else?

[DoodleDawg]

You know very well I claim that the Union fought to stop independence and didn't give a rat's @$$ about the continuation of slavery, but most people think they were fighting to stop the practice.

I don't know about most people, but none of the Union defenders I've seen around here make that claim. Nor have I. Ever.

You can be intellectually honest if you really want to.

I try to match my argument to the level of the person I'm debating.

Well, in order to claim it is ridiculous, it would be a good idea for someone to ask him where he got that number. I find it odd that people (Baldwin) think they can throw out "facts" and think that people won't check on them.

I gave you my theory on where Baldwin got his figures from back in reply 95. But what I truly find surprising from the Confederate side is that you all will read anything that condemns Lincoln and the U.S., no matter how preposterous, and not question any of it. I truly will never understand the Southern mindset.

[DoodleDawg]

In most of these discussions, you cannot avoid the Union apologists bringing up slavery, as if that somehow answers the question as to whether the South had a right to leave.

It's raised because it was their reason for leaving. As to whether they had the right to leave, I've seen some Unionists saying that states couldn't leave at all, others saying they could with a Constitutional amendment, and others argue that leaving was permitted with the consent of both sides. Personally I go for the last method, especially since that was what James Madison said.

Some people are surprised that the Union had five slave states, and that they had no intentions of stopping slavery until two years into the war.

Some people believe that every single word of Baldwin's article is absolute fact. So what can I say? There are a lot of gullible people out there who don't do their own research.

[DoodleDawg]

not my school system, south carolina school system

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

[Crim]

Bull crap and a liberal myth....the vast majority of the Dixiecrats returned to the Democrat party..the parties never “switched places” that is a Democrat talking point to try and crabwalk away from being the Party of Slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation.

As evidenced by the death in office of KKK cyclops Robert Byrd...Democrat.

Nice try though.

[Crim]

What I dont get is why ANY self respecting Conservative wishes that DEMOCRATS had won the civil war.

That is some serious cognitive dissonance there

[rockrr]

Because....”states rights!” (or something).