Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered
Megyn Kelly.Org ^ | 7/9/2015 | Megyn Kelly

Posted on 07/13/2015 8:05:28 AM PDT by HomerBohn

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-265 next last
To: central_va

“According the the FR Lincoln Coven the south never left the union. It was never recognized as a nation.”

Well they are accurate in reflecting Lincoln’s position.

Lincoln chose not to recognize the independence of the southern states in the same way that the Crown refused to acknowledge the colonials declaring their independence 90 years earlier.

So the war he was waging was against people that he considered his fellow American citizens, no matter what they thought about being a new nation. He probably holds the record for death and destruction of Americans since he argued that the Confederacy never existed.


61 posted on 07/13/2015 9:10:27 AM PDT by Pelham (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek
South Carolina's own Articles of Secession don't agree with you - the main reason given for secession is because of the North's refusal to return escaped slaves, which South Carolina declares to be sufficient grounds to dissolve the Union. The same fixation with the issue of slavery is found in the secession declarations of multiple Confederate states.

Freeper ought-six addressed this point in an earlier discussion.

In all, thirteen states had Articles of Secession (though only eleven ever actually ratified them, and they became the eleven states of the Confederate States of America). In those eleven Articles of Secession, only four specifically mentioned slavery as a cause (note: just one of many causes): South Carolina; Mississippi; Texas; and Georgia. Virginia’s only mention of it was to effect it expressed solidarity with the slave states that had seceded. The day after Virginia ratified its Articles of Secession (May 23, 1861), Union troops marched into Northern Virginia (May 24, 1861).

So, of thirteen Articles of Secession; only four expressly mentioned slavery as a reason. But they ALL cited self-determination as a reason.


62 posted on 07/13/2015 9:10:36 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Right. Right. Right. Nothing to do with perpetuating the right to enslave another human being.

You can't get on your moral high horse when the Union had every intention of letting this continue. You can't give them credit for starting a war to "abolish slavery" when they had no intention of doing so until two years after the war had started.

63 posted on 07/13/2015 9:12:29 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

For years I have told people that the war was over tariffs and the freedom of states to succeed and that Lincoln was not for freeing slaves and they look at me as though I have three eyes and horns.


64 posted on 07/13/2015 9:12:44 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
He probably holds the record for death and destruction of Americans since he argued that the Confederacy never existed.

That record stands with jeff davis who instigated and waged war against his fellow Americans.

65 posted on 07/13/2015 9:14:00 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn
"That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.”

And that War of Northern Aggression was not started over slavery...albeit, unpopular by most of the states. The war was over money, tariffs. AND most significantly "...3 states, Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island declared in their ordinances of ratification that, being sovereign states, they reserved the right to secede from the Union. Virginia's convention, for example, affirmed that " the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States my be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." They also asserted this right for the other states, which was unnecessary since it was self-evident to everyone at the time that no state could be forced to join or remain a part of the union...."

The 'south' had a constitutional right to secede.

66 posted on 07/13/2015 9:14:20 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
It was the south that went to war over slavery. They stated so rather unambiguously. It was the north who went to war because the south had gone to war against them.

And Here you are. You keep saying that nobody on your side makes the false claim that the Union fought the war to end slavery, and here you yourself are insinuating this very thing.

You do no bring up "slavery" unless you are insinuating such a claim. It has no bearing on the issue unless you are trying to imply causality. And you are.

67 posted on 07/13/2015 9:15:10 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You are trying to measure the conditions of that time by modern ideas of morality.

Actually, I'm measuring it by the worries and concerns of the Southern states when it comes to what they thought Lincoln would do if he became President.

I'm aware of Lincoln's statements about preserving the Union whether or not he could end slavery.

What doesn't get as much air time is the Southern states insistence that Lincoln not allow slavery in the new states as they were admitted to the Union. No ifs, ands or buts about it. And THAT is why they seceded.

That is simply inarguable.

68 posted on 07/13/2015 9:15:40 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
I oppose the Confederate Flag because it represents another country.

Fair enough. That also happens to be precisely the reason I support it.

69 posted on 07/13/2015 9:15:56 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Come back when the drugs you are taking haven’t so completely addled your brain.


70 posted on 07/13/2015 9:17:07 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle

What is more tyrannical than slavery?


That is true but it was all about power and not slavery though the people fought for what they believed it was about,

We can see what it was all about today by just looking at the headlines, :STATES MUST EXCEPT SODOMITE MARRIAGE:

Not in those exact words but which amount to the same thing,

States have lost their rights and so has every one else.


71 posted on 07/13/2015 9:18:53 AM PDT by ravenwolf (If the Bible don`t say it, don`t preach it to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
In four of those five cases the separation was done only after a war. And only because those wanting to leave won.

Because Declaring independence was against their established laws. It is completely in accordance with *OUR* established laws. Ever hear of our founding principles as espoused in the Declaration of Independence?

Once we made Independence the bedrock foundation of our own existence, we could not morally condemn it when others sought it. Seeking Independence is legally consistent with our highest laws.

72 posted on 07/13/2015 9:18:57 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

I thought I read this same article, but Chuck Baldwin was the byline.


73 posted on 07/13/2015 9:19:01 AM PDT by Nea Wood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You can't get on your moral high horse when the Union had every intention of letting this continue.Now you're getting into the whole Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Missouri Compromise and all that stuff. The North was clearly on the path of abolishing slavery. It was just a matter of time. The South did not want to see that time come.
74 posted on 07/13/2015 9:20:43 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to border slaves states Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri because they were loyal to the Union. Also exempt were certain southern territories that had come under Union control. This was an attempt to gain the loyalty of whites in those territories.
The only areas that it applied to were those states still fighting the Union.


75 posted on 07/13/2015 9:21:49 AM PDT by cork (Gun control = hitting what you aim at)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Jagdgewehr

Ditto that!


76 posted on 07/13/2015 9:22:08 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
The only connection I can see is that Texas was its own country once. Once it was admitted to the Union it kept its flag, that’s true. I don’t deny that. Perhaps I am splitting hairs (hares?) but it seems to me the Confederate flag was created to highlight the separation.

Do you know what the "Confederate" flag looks like? It looks like this:

I think you are referring to the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, which many people mistakenly name as the "Confederate" flag.

77 posted on 07/13/2015 9:22:55 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
HOWEVER, in the articles of ratification of tge Constitution drawn up by two states, Virginia and New York, I believe, a clause was included which reserved to each of those states the right to withdraw from the Union in the event they felt their rights and sovereignty was abridged. Because the Constitutional Convention accepted those articles of ratification, they were extended to all the states.

I did not know that. Thanks for informing us.

78 posted on 07/13/2015 9:24:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Actually the Yankees refused to leave Ft Sumpter, there is a right for states to leave the union. Therefore this was the War of Northern Aggression, they wanted to keep and dominate the South. Was slavery evil yes, but that doesn’t exclude the rights of succession for the states. I pray we have a peaceful divorce now rather than a bloody one later.


79 posted on 07/13/2015 9:25:41 AM PDT by rebel25 (If the thief in the night takes 7 seconds to get into my room that is 5 too long for him...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

This actually sounds more like Leonard M Scruggs, “The Un-Civil War: Shattering the Historical Myths”, as the quote from Patrick Cleburne was also noted therein, and was the first time I’d ever read it.

The article’s overtones also bear remarkable similarities to Scruggs.

Just saying....


80 posted on 07/13/2015 9:26:27 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-265 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson