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

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.

In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow Southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.

Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!

In fact, Southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the Southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

And before the South seceded, several Northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century--long before the Southern states even considered such a thing.

People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the Southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.

Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.

One of those Northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”

The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: why would the Southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the Southern (and Northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

The problem was Lincoln wanted the Southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown--albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery--so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the Southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people--even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”

Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?

It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded Southern independence--policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy--and they might have a notion to again resist.

By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the Southern generals and fighting acumen of the Southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.

I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the Southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?

That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”

Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.

In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against Southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the Southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the South, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated Southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.

If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!

By the time Lincoln launched his war against the Southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of Southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully--just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”

And look at what is happening now: in one instant--after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag--the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.

The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.

In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.

Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”

Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:

Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

“I stand by my comment. You speak like a good little Bundist.”

And you speak like a proud southern democrat....defending of slavery and Jim crow....and since the republicans put an end to that shit....I would assume you hate Republicans too...

Here is your problem....I support anyones right to fly the NV battle flag...I think attacking memorials and sacred gave sites is the stuff of ISIS....

But when you want to re fight and re debate something settled a 150 years ago I’m gonna tune out man...the notion that the civil war WASNT about slavery is disproven by the conflicts between pro and anti slavery forces that predeeded the civil war in areas like Bleeding Kansas.

You are simply trying to wish away history...written by BOTH SIDES.

Saying the Union (which no longer exists) went to war ONLY over economic issues is like saying the US invaded Iraq ONLY over WMD’s....

No one disputes the economic reasons for the civil war....but you are clearly disputing that slavery was a factor AT ALL.

Well, you asked for one and I gave you one. A citizen of the United States has the right to participate in the election of the President of the United States. The secessionists interfered with the rights of their neighbors to participate in that process. You may not think your United States citizenship is of any value, but it's very important to many of us. If you want to give up your own citizenship and your rights under the U.S. Constitution, go ahead and do that, but don't try to do that for others. "We the People" have political bonds and the vehicle for our connection is the United States Constitution. You have no right to try to sever those bonds just because you no longer find any satisfaction with your country or your citizenship. We're not making you happy??

A lot of you are just obviously spoiled and haven't yet learned how most of the world lives. You have no idea how lucky you are to be an American. I suggest you travel some and see if you can find a place that makes you happier. You may need a space ship.

"English Union"? No such animal ever existed.

Maybe you mean The Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Presumably this is part of the Confederate fiction that the War of Independence and the Civil War were analogous.

Of course, in the former, the Americans took up arms because they were denied representation in the nation's counsels.

In the latter, the Confederates took up arms despite the fact that were overrepresented in the nation's counsels.

The two enterprises were diametrically opposite.

And I'm sure you cried a river for the poor British Loyalists also deprived of this right because the majority wanted to become a separate nation.

Do you know what the word "Rationalization" means? You don't give a flying F*** about people being unable to vote for President if the rest of their state goes over to a new government, you are just making crap up to cover up the fact that you are a fan of the Union team in that conflict and you must disguise your Yah! Team spirit by pretending to be objective.

And you are apparently too simple to grasp the fact that America is embracing all those ideas which make those worse parts of the world suck so bad. We are becoming those sucky parts of the world because we are accepting massive numbers of their dysfunctional citizens, and their dysfunctional ideas.

The America I want to live in is a set of ideas and principles, not a place. This place is becoming a third world version of Nazi Germany as fast as it can, with the difference being that we have no where to run to escape the Nazis this time.

No, but you are obviously unaware of the concept of "non-sequitur." That's when the response has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the initial statement.

That's one theory. An alternate and probably more correct one is that you lack the astuteness necessary to comprehend the connection.

Without the contributions of the Slave State of Virginia, it is very unlikely that there would now be a United States. They asserted "States Rights" against the British Union when they formed their Confederacy.

For that matter, during the US War for Independence, ALL the states were slave states talking about "States rights."

Maybe you mean The Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

If you are going to jump into this discussion, you really ought to do a better job of learning what you are talking about. See this?

It's called the "Union Jack." It incorporates the flags of England, Ireland and Scotland into the English Union.

The Correct name for Britain is "United Kingdom." It was United during the "Union of the Crowns" back in 1603.

So yeah, it was a UNION.

Presumably this is part of the Confederate fiction that the War of Independence and the Civil War were analogous.

That a bunch of slave states broke away from a larger Union, fought a war in an effort to gain their independence, Formed their own Confederacy, had the Union offering freedom to their slaves if they would join the Union Cause, and were led primarily by a Slave Owning General from Virginia?

Yeah, the two events are nothing alike.

The two enterprises were diametrically opposite.

You are ignorant and/or deluded. The events are exactly alike.

If you are going to jump into this discussion, you really ought to do a better job of learning what you are talking about. See this?

That flag was never flown over the American colonies, because it didn't exist before 1801.

My "job of learning" included learning that 1776 comes before 1801 on the number line.

It's called the "Union Jack."

Correct, but the union was only between the kingdoms of Scotland and England, not between Scotland, England, the colonies, etc.

The colonies were not considered to be parties to any union, but to be the property of the Crown of great Britain.

Yeah, the two events are nothing alike.

Correct.

In the War of Independence, people who were denied the right to participate in their own government created a new one in which the finally had representation.

In the Civil War, people who had even more representation in their government than their numbers warranted seceded out of fear that other people (their slaves) might one day be represented as well.

Completely different circumstances, completely different agendas.

As the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, said in reference to the US Founders and their Constitution: "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas."

That flag was never flown over the American colonies, because it didn't exist before 1801.

Irrelevant to the point. The "Union" which that flag currently represents was formed in 1603.

That you make an issue of the difference between this flag:

And This flag:

Indicates how unseriousness you are.

The colonies were not considered to be parties to any union, but to be the property of the Crown of great Britain.

Oh, so they were the personal property of the King, which somehow in your weird way of looking at things, places them outside the boundaries of the "Union?" That is a ridiculous claim and again, you are demonstrating how unserious you are.

In the War of Independence, people who were denied the right to participate in their own government created a new one in which the finally had representation.

It was about more than just that. There are dozens of complaints. Once again, your oversimplification demonstrates how unserious you are.

In the Civil War, people who had even more representation in their government than their numbers warranted seceded out of fear that other people (their slaves) might one day be represented as well.

And here I can't tell if you're lying, or just don't know any better. "Slavery" represented more than 1/4th of all the assets of the people in the South. Not only that, it represented the biggest part of their income stream. Their ability to make money was heavily dependent upon slavery, and without it they would become poor.

You deliberately try to make it about "representation" when in fact, it is mostly about money, and their potential loss of billions of dollars of what they had put into it, plus all future earnings.

It was more akin to saying the US should give up usage of fossil fuels in terms of impact it would have had on their economy. It would have wrecked them.

Your comments also completely ignore the fact that the Union had no intention of freeing these people or changing the status quo. The Union was perfectly willing to allow them to remain in bondage so long as the South continued to allow Washington D.C. To run things.

Completely different circumstances, completely different agendas.

Yes, the Second one was far worse of a threat to their livelihood than was the offenses of King George. I wonder how you would feel if someone said they were going to take all your investments, and deny you any future earnings.

Blow a gasket, most likely.

Correct, but the union was only between the kingdoms of Scotland and England, not between Scotland, England, the colonies, etc.

Not quite right. The 1801 Act of Union was between Great Britain and Ireland.

The Kingdom of Great Britain was the product of an earlier Act of Union in 1707 that united Scotland and England/Wales.

I'm pretty familiar with the Cornerstone Speech, and the "opposite ideas" Alex was referring to were, for the Declaration of Independence the idea that all men are created equal, and for the Confederacy the notion that Africans were born to be slaves, that being their natural and normal condition in relation to the Master Race. IOW, that all men are NOT created equal.

Oh, so they were the personal property of the King

Insofar as they were held by charter from the Crown, the colonies were, yes. But after 1688, the "Crown" was truly the "King in Parliament" - so the colonists were effectively tenants of the people who were actually represented in Parliament - representation which they were denied.

A white landowner in Virginia under the British Crown had 0% of the voting power of a white landowner in Norwich or Leeds.

A white landowner in Virginia under the US Constitution had 100% of the voting power of a white landowner in Massachusetts PLUS 60% of the voting power his slaves would have if his slaves had been his fellow white landowners.

Put another way, every five Virginians under the US Constitution had votes equivalent to the votes of six Pennsylvanians.

So under the unified Parliament of Great Britain, 0% representation, under the federal Union of the United States, always more than 100% for the proto-Confederates.

White South Carolinians - the first to secede - had more weight per voter in US elections than voters in any other state.

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.