Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)
via e-mail | Thursday, July 9, 2015 | Chuck Baldwin

Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 541-556 next last
To: Tupelo
Wow. The Southern Poverty Law Center is uber-left and puts everybody on their right wing extremist watch list including Bambi, Minnie Mouse and Betty Boop. Anybody they don't like, like you said, is probably a good candidate for being an okay guy.

Thanks. I'll do some research on this guy and the material he presented when I get some extra time.

101 posted on 07/11/2015 1:46:53 PM PDT by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

When people say the War wasn’t about slavery, they’re half right. The United States didn’t fight to end slavery. they were very clear that the they fought to maintain the Union. The South, on the other hand, fought solely to expand Slavery into the Territories, and maintain Slavery in the states that still had it.

Your comment stating that the Union fought the war to end freedom calls to mind what I call the Chinese Fortune Cookie rule. Just as no Fortune Cookie statement is complete without adding the words “in bed”, no statement (from apologists) on the causes of the Civil War is complete without adding the words “regarding slavery”. It works perfectly on your statement: The Union fought to end freedom REGARDING SLAVERY.

The root cause of the Secession of the Southern States was and has always been, the fact that they wanted to maintain the right to own and other people, and to extend that right to the Territories. You can call it FREEDOM, or State’s Rights, it’s still about the right to own other people against their will.


102 posted on 07/11/2015 1:46:58 PM PDT by Team Cuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: golux

the complete ignoring of the stated causes of secession by the southern governments is nothing more than historical revisionism.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=92


103 posted on 07/11/2015 1:58:24 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=92


104 posted on 07/11/2015 2:01:52 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis

selective passages, leaving out the ones with SLAVERY in them, is intellectually dishonest

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/


105 posted on 07/11/2015 2:07:35 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: llabradoodlle

The GOP may or may not be the party of Lincoln, to answer your question best I can. Lincoln was a brilliant, tortured, lying opportunist who found himself in a quandary. He really was a man of two minds and there is no doubt he was a patriot in his own heart. The GOP, similarly, is an opportunistic enterprise, and because it is a commune it is generally devoid of all but viral influence. The differentiating factor for the GOP is the “Constitution,” our rock in these days if we will see it. It has “lived and breathed” so long, though - is it enforceable and valid? Does it matter to men who can no longer read? This is maybe the question of our time.


106 posted on 07/11/2015 2:09:30 PM PDT by golux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Bulwyf

lets hear some of the southern side, I agree:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=92


107 posted on 07/11/2015 2:09:42 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg; DiogenesLamp

remind him that almost 25% of all slave owners in South Carolina were black themselves

it might explain why so many blacks fought or the confederacy

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

http://www.kon.org/urc/v4/tikhomirova.html


108 posted on 07/11/2015 2:17:05 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: golux

what if the south won??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exnwTWfFRM8


109 posted on 07/11/2015 2:25:32 PM PDT by RaceBannon (Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
remind him that almost 25% of all slave owners in South Carolina were black themselves

OK, let's look at that. According to the 1860 census there were 26,701 slaveholders in South Carolina. Twenty-five percent of that would be 6675. So your claim is that there were about 6700 black slave owners in South Carolina.

The same census records 9,914 free black people in South Carolina. So for your claim to be correct then 67% of all black people in South Carolina owned slaves. Does that sound right to you?

But wait, that 9,914 is total free blacks in the state; men, women, and children from 1 year old to over 100. If we break it down by just adults, there were 4504 free blacks above the age on 19. So for your claim to be true then not only would every single free black adult, male and female, in South Carolina have to own slaves but 2200 free black children would also have to be slaveowners. Again, does that seem right to you?

110 posted on 07/11/2015 2:36:20 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
what if the south won??

Fun film.

111 posted on 07/11/2015 2:41:09 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

The GOP was founded by abolitionists....what did you expect them to do when they got into power?

I’m damn proud to be a republican....I’m glad the Republicans kicked the shit of those democrat plantation owners....and I’m glad the Republicans ended Democrat passed Jom crow laws by force if needed be...

Arent you?

WTF?

These attempts to re-write and whitewash history are the very same things Liberals are doing for christ sake....I’m fine with southern pride..I’m fine with the NV battle flag....I’m glad we still have active members of reenactment groups......I think banning the flag is pure liberal facism.

And I’m outraged that Liberals are attacking war monuments and sacred grave sites....this was settled a long time ago by the men who fought each other and then later became comrades as veterans who held each other in mutual respect for decades to come.

But the notion that the civil war wasnt a direct result of decades of conflict between pro and anti slavery forces, resulting in open warfare at times....is a purely false one.

The artical in the OP was written by a man who thinks the south “should have” won the civil war....

Well...they tried and failed.

This romantic neo confederate vision is driven on the false notion that an alternative history based on that outcome...would leave the present looking anything like it does today.

It’s not up to us to re-judge or re-write the struggle or the outcome...again...the men who fought that struggle made their amends....and it is not for us to undo them.


112 posted on 07/11/2015 2:48:04 PM PDT by Crim (Palin / West '16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: golux

Ok...I just found out that Chuck Baldwin is also a 9/11 truther.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/baldwin/130510

“9/11 Twin Towers and Pentagon Attacks

There has been so much written on this subject, I will let readers fend for themselves as to personal research on the matter. Without wading too deeply into this discussion (and for the sake of column space), let me ask just one simple question. Pray tell, what took down Building 7? To this good hour, I have not heard one single plausible explanation proffered by any government or media representative that explains why Building 7 collapsed.

Do I know what really happened on 9/11? No. But do I believe that the government is purposefully keeping the American people in the dark as to what really happened on 9/11/01? You bet I do! Do I believe that there is a cover-up of crucial evidence related to 9/11 by both the federal government and the national news media? You bet I do!”

He’s a nutbag.


113 posted on 07/11/2015 2:48:05 PM PDT by Crim (Palin / West '16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: golux

Thanks for posting.


114 posted on 07/11/2015 3:35:27 PM PDT by 2001convSVT (Going Galt as fast as I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
you are not entitled to your own facts.

Nice you brought that up. So, why did Lincoln only "free slaves" in the territories where Federal troops did not have control? Why specifically exclude, by name, those places where he could have but did not free slaves? Have you even read the so called "Emancipation Proclamation"?

While you are at it, why is a fact, and how can it be Constitutional to imprison the entire legislature of Maryland without trail, and lock them up (ironically) in Ft McHenry? "Rockets red glare" sure must have meant something different to the Maryland lawmakers.
115 posted on 07/11/2015 3:38:14 PM PDT by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Sorry, DiogenesLamp, I am not going to engage in a purely emotional discussion with you.

I don’t appreciate your inference that i am dishonest because I don;t see it the same way you do.


116 posted on 07/11/2015 3:48:34 PM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant.Buy into it,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

My feelings as well. It seems impossible to discuss this in a civilized manner with some people.

Sadly.


117 posted on 07/11/2015 3:51:26 PM PDT by rlmorel ("National success by the Democratic Party equals irretrievable ruin." Ulysses S. Grant.Buy into it,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

Yep.

Was pointing out something the article brushed over


118 posted on 07/11/2015 3:52:40 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Tzfat
So, why did Lincoln only "free slaves" in the territories where Federal troops did not have control? Why specifically exclude, by name, those places where he could have but did not free slaves? Have you even read the so called "Emancipation Proclamation"?

I have read the Emancipation Proclamation and I've also read another document titled Constitution of the United States. And since the Constitution does not mention slavery then constitutionally Lincoln could not free the slaves in Union states and areas under Union control. Lincoln could free the slaves in the South because the Confiscation Acts, passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, allowed the government to seize private property without compensation if that property was being used to support the rebellion. So Lincoln could declare Southern slaves free so he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It took the 13th Amendment to end slavery, which Lincoln got through Congress and on to the states for ratification. I'm surprised that you were unaware of all that.

While you are at it, why is a fact, and how can it be Constitutional to imprison the entire legislature of Maryland without trail, and lock them up (ironically) in Ft McHenry?

I would if it happened, but Chuck Baldwin crap to the contrary Lincoln never arrested the entire Maryland legislature. Authorities arrested some members of the legislature in September 1861 because they were advocating joining the Southern rebellion going on at the time and the authorities, not surprisingly, took a dim view of that. What do you think would have happened if in early 1942 members of the Texas legislature wanted to vote on joining the Axis side of the war?

119 posted on 07/11/2015 3:54:18 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Two words: habeas corpus. Please cite the Constitutional authority for the suspension. So Lincoln was a Constitutionally aware with the Non-Emancipation Proclamation, but without a blink suspends the rule of law, jails the Maryland legislature; and when the Chief Justice of the US said his actions were illegal, the tyrant Lincoln had the gall to try and arrest the Chief Justice.

He was a freaking tyrant, and set the stage for tyrants like Obama. No,facts are too kind to your god, Lincoln.


120 posted on 07/11/2015 4:04:28 PM PDT by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 541-556 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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