Posted on 07/11/2015 9:54:21 AM PDT by golux
The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered
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 Americas 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 Madisons 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 didnt 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 Lincolns proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? Thats 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 Lincolns 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 nations 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. Lincolns 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: Lincolns 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 isnt a racist statement, Ive never heard one.
Lincolns 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 dont our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?
Its 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 Lincolns 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 Maxwells 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?
Thats 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 didnt 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 Americas 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. Thats 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 didnt take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. Americas so-called Civil War was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincolns 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 Weavers sermon The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag here:
The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag
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 Lincolns war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincolns America, not Washington and Jeffersons America. Washington and Jeffersons America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.
Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.
© Chuck Baldwin
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.
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.
Of course it’s a lie. The Union fought the South because the South went to war against the north.
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.
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.
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
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
I have to agree with that. And I'm thankful for it.
not my school system, south carolina school system
the land where this all happened
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.
Not sure I would use “misguided”. IMO Lincoln was naïve to the growing Southern nationalism and it influence on Davis, Pickens and other involved.
Naïve is better ;’)
So, lets 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 youre 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, its 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?
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.
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.
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
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.
That is some serious cognitive dissonance there
Because....”states rights!” (or something).
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.