Keep the battle flag out of the Capitol

The Roanoke Times ^ | 29 July 2007 | Christian Trejbal

[x]

I don't fly the union flag because no one in my family fought for the Army of the 'Republic'.

Are you talking about the flag of United States? Didn't you have other relatives who fought for our country? Does a father or uncle or grandfather who fought againt Hitler or Tojo mean nothing to you?

There's already a new statue of a most worthless individual in Richmond. Isn't that enough?

Lee? Davis? Stuart? A.P. Hill? Arthur Ashe? Bojangles? Must be Davis. I'd have to agree. It's not just enough, it's too much.

[x]

Do you think the anti-Rebel Flag movement in Virginia (or any other state) is being driven by patriotic type folks down at the local VFW post?

Movements are driven by kooks a lot of the time. They're the ones with the energy.

But Douglas Wilder, a decorated veteran of the Korean Conflict has taken objection to some displays of Confederate flags.

I'm not saying I agree with Wilder's politics, but you're way too apocalyptic about this issue.

This is something that responsible people are going to sort out, not the end of the world.

[Volunteer]

I think Mr. Trejbal needs to "talk" with some of the good citizens of Lexington, VA.

I am sure there are some cadets at VMI who could explain it to this twit.

[billbears]

Does a father or uncle or grandfather who fought againt Hitler or Tojo mean nothing to you?

I have no relatives that fought in the War to End All Wars nor the following wars spawned by Wilsonian adventurism. They fought in the War of Independence, the War of 1812 (which some yanks didn't have the stomach for (Hartford Convention)), minor skirmishes in between, and the Second War of Independence. They did their bit for God and country.

Lee? Davis? Stuart? A.P. Hill? Arthur Ashe? Bojangles? Must be Davis. I'd have to agree. It's not just enough, it's too much.

You know full well I speak of that spawn from Hamilton's school of politics.

[x]

Look at the people who want it taken down. Leftists. The reason they are zeroing in on the CBF is that it is politically easier to target southerners.

Some of this is membership drives on the part of groups like the NAACP. Some of it involves local issues. You'd do better to sit down with your neighbors on the other side than rant about outsiders.

If they can demonize an entire culture in this country, it's not long before they demonize everything that is uniquely American.

I'd give "demonization" a rest. If you say that people who disagree with you are "demonizing" you, aren't you "demonizing" them? Demonizations of one sort or another are a distraction. That's what people do or accuse each other of doing because they're not interested in having a real debate.

If the statist-oriented "conservatives" on this forum and elsewhere get their way, we'll fly whatever they tell us too.

Meaning who? McCain? Romney? Giuliani? Bush? Are they really out to tear down Old Glory?

Whatever you think of them, they're probably more loyal to the country than "anti-statist" libertarians are.

[CurlyBill]

Very well put. This is a knee-jerk leftist argument that is often echoed without thought or consideration. Political correctness rules the day in our schools and many have become indoctrinated... even some here on the FR. The Confederate flag is no more racist than the American flag. Slaves were bought and sold under the American flag for the better part of 100 years. Is the American flag a symbol of hate? The PC types here choose to ignore some of these facts.

[jedward]

[Altura Ct.]

Here is another fine example of race politics and “symbols”. Enrique Morones a race baiter and “civil rights” activist is demanding removal of a Pete Wilson statue. The hypocrisy of all of this is more then I can stand. Morones is a racist prick and is demanding removal of a statue on private property no less. Can you imagine a white American going into say Mexico and demanding they remove this statue and removing that flag and changing this history etc etc. The joys of multiculturalism. Wake up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhwQxlEppxM

[Non-Sequitur]

Why not go with a more recent picture? Note the flag in the upper right hand corner of the Link

[Non-Sequitur]

what it really amounted to was Linclon setting it up to where the south had to fire first, thus making them in to the aggressors.

AKA the "We wuz so stoopid we done fell raht into Linkum's trap" defense.

[Non-Sequitur]

The CSA had offered to reimburse the union for all federal property before the war, which would have included Fort Sumter. The union troops would not leave the fort so the south fired on them, then Lincoln started the war. Lincoln could have accepted payment for the fort and got the troops out, but he didn't.

Even if payment had been offered, why should Lincoln have left? It was a U.S. fort in what he considered a U.S. city.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Lincoln could have accepted payment for the fort and got the troops out, but he didn't

You can accept the hundred dollars I'll give you for your house, or I'll start shooting. Hell, I feel generous. Make it $125.

[slow5poh]

“AKA the “We wuz so stoopid we done fell raht into Linkum’s trap” defense”

Yes, because all southerners were yokels back then right?

[slow5poh]

“You can accept the hundred dollars I’ll give you for your house, or I’ll start shooting. Hell, I feel generous. Make it $125.”

you don’t know what the value was or what would have been paid for the fort. The south had decided to rebel against the union. The fort was on southern land that did not belong to the union.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The land had been deeded to the federal government by the state of South Carolina. "Not before November 22, 1841, was the Federal Government's title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina." source

Are you claiming that property rights were negated by secession?

[slow5poh]

absolutely, especially when the CSA offered reimbursement for said property rights.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

you don’t know what the value was or what would have been paid for the fort.

Not the point. You seem to believe that rejection of an offer to buy someone's property gives you the right to start shooting at them

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So all that confederate talk about property rights was so much hot air, then, huh?

[slow5poh]

your missing the point dude. And you already have your mind made up. So why should I argue with you anymore. We are going to see another civil war anyway so why argue over he old one. With immigration the way it is, and the gov as corrup as it is, and the dems wanting to take our guns and freedom away, I think public insurrection is not far away.

[slow5poh]

“So all that confederate talk about property rights was so much hot air, then, huh?”

No.
The south wanted to cease to be associated with the union, in order to do that they could not have a union military base there. When we rebelled against england we fired on there militery forts! And we didn’t offer to reimburse them either.