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

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

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Good point.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Even if 100% of the reasons given by all the seceding states had been slavery, (which was most certainly not anywhere near the case), the states would have still had the constitutional right to secede.

[RaceBannon]

no, Lincoln was so anti-slavery he ran on a party whose main platform was anti-slavery

your verbal gymnastics will throw out your sacroiliac if you’re not careful

[Team Cuda]

So you agree that the reason they seceded was slavery? That without slavery, they would have continued in the United States?

[rockrr]

It was a pretend secession but it wasn’t a pretend rebellion.

[rockrr]

Not unilaterally.

[Crim]

“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.

[Crim]

“He was also a white supremacist”

Who belonged to a newly formed abolition party?

Yeah yeah sure sure.

[Tau Food]

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.

[DoodleDawg]

He was also a white supremacist who believed that blacks would never the social equals of whites...

Tell me one leader of the time, North or South, who didn't?

[cvq3842]

Interesting article. I wonder, with 150 years of hindsight, what would have happened if the South had responded to the Emancipation Proclamation with a proclamation of its own, freeing all Southern slaves and challenging the North to do the same with its slaves? Maybe someone could write a science fiction story about it. Maybe someone already has.

Of course, it sounds ridiculous on its face. Neither the North or the South was a bastion of good race relations. But maybe the ridiculousness of the idea tells us something about the war itself.

[Zionist Conspirator]

The Slave Power didn't believe in states' rights. They just grabbed that slogan once their conspiracy against the Free States failed and a non-extentionist was elected President.

I guess you are unaware of Virginia's contribution to Independence from the English Union.

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.

[wideawake]

"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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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??

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.

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.

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.

[DiogenesLamp]

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."

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[wideawake]

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."

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

[Sherman Logan]

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.

[wideawake]

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.