Confederate Flag To Come Down in Columbia - *Security Perimeter Established*

[AuH20]

250 feet weapons exclusion zone. Corresponding snipers on roofs adjacent to Statehouse.

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/weapons-exclusion-zone.jpg?w=500


http://www.beachamjournal.com/.a/6a01053653b3c7970b0133eca0ebbe970b-800wi

[AuH20]

They just rolled up the flag like it was a newspaper.

[kahless]

Crowd singing, "Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye". Shameful.

[Ronin Truth]

It's down. Have you noticed all of the difference that it makes yet?

[AuH20]

It's down. Have you noticed all of the difference that it makes yet?

But the descendants of those villainous men still live. Our work here is not done. [/s]

[sparebulb]

+1 rep for South Carolina.

Now more people can see what government can do whenever it takes a notion.

[FloralScent]

It's down. Have you noticed all of the difference that it makes yet?

I've noticed a difference in the number of Confederate flags I'm seeing here in Ohio.

[AuH20]

I'd say this was rather prophetic................................. Traditionless and migratory, consuming all in their path....................Sounds like the soulless demons that reside in the coastal metropolises. And yes, I live near one!

http://civilwartalk.com/attachments/jefferson-davis-on-the-yankees-jpg.11928/

[kahless]

I've noticed a difference in the number of Confederate flags I'm seeing here in Ohio.

More or less?

[FloralScent]

They just rolled up the flag like it was a newspaper.

Kind of like the way the ANV used to roll up the flanks of numerically superior Union armies.

[FloralScent]

More or less?

More in the past 2 weeks than I've seen in the past 10 years.

[tangent4ronpaul]

They just rolled up the flag like it was a newspaper.

Actually about the only thing they did do right. They did the corner to corner thing forming a triangle - right after they dipped it in the dirt.


Crowd singing, "Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye". Shameful.

They were chanting USA, USA, USA before that :rolleyes:

I'm waiting for the YouTube for the comedy value! It's quite clear that none of those state cops served a day in the military and certainly never were a member of a marching band. "Honor guard" - What a joke!

-t

[AuH20]

For so long, as a resident of the North I believed the lies that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator and that the North was morally correct in their crusade. Until I started examining the historical record and discovered to my surprise that I was indeed incorrect in my original assumptions. I never knew that Lincoln has suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus for 13,000 citizens. I never knew Lincoln intentionally goaded South Carolina at Fort Sumter with a convoy of warships. You don't learn these type of critical details, even in parochial school.

Spiritually, despite my geographic location, I have become a confederate at heart.

[kahless]

For so long, as a resident of the North I believed the lies that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator and that the North was morally correct in their crusade. Until I started examining the historical record and discovered to my surprise that I was indeed incorrect in my original assumptions. I never knew that Lincoln has suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus for 13,000 citizens. I never knew Lincoln intentionally goaded South Carolina at Fort Sumter with a convoy of warships. You don't learn these type of critical details, even in parochial school.

Spiritually, despite my geographic location, I have become a confederate at heart.

^This is exactly where I am at and have been saying the same thing to friends and family.

This might cheer a few people up. In other flag news, the Confederate flag may have gone down today but at least another flag went up yesterday.

Vladimir Putin's United Russia Party unveils 'straight flag' to rival gay pride symbol
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putins-united-russia-party-unveils-straight-flag-to-rival-gay-pride-symbol-10377440.html

[DamianTV]

Does anyone now still think they dont intentionally want to start some sort of conflict within our own borders?

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://d.europe.newsweek.com/en/full/8758/russia-unveils-straight-pride-flag.jpg?w=730

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

WOW!

http://www.euronews.com/2015/07/09/russia-unveils-straight-flag/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJeDwkrUEAA8Joz.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CI113bNWgAAHr6M.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJEI1wMW8AA7ItS.jpg

Looks like US media is totally ignoring this.

-t

[Carlybee]

But the descendants of those villainous men still live. Our work here is not done. [/s]

Just wait until they go after the villainous white supremacist American Revolutionaries.

[Carlybee]

For so long, as a resident of the North I believed the lies that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator and that the North was morally correct in their crusade. Until I started examining the historical record and discovered to my surprise that I was indeed incorrect in my original assumptions. I never knew that Lincoln has suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus for 13,000 citizens. I never knew Lincoln intentionally goaded South Carolina at Fort Sumter with a convoy of warships. You don't learn these type of critical details, even in parochial school.

Spiritually, despite my geographic location, I have become a confederate at heart.

Well you better print it out because it will all be rewritten for the history books.

[Ender]

For so long, as a resident of the North I believed the lies that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator and that the North was morally correct in their crusade. Until I started examining the historical record and discovered to my surprise that I was indeed incorrect in my original assumptions. I never knew that Lincoln has suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus for 13,000 citizens. I never knew Lincoln intentionally goaded South Carolina at Fort Sumter with a convoy of warships. You don't learn these type of critical details, even in parochial school.

Spiritually, despite my geographic location, I have become a confederate at heart.

Same here.

And trying to tell people that the War Between the States was never a Civil War & never about slavery is a mind-blower for all concerned.

[Southron]

I hate this country more every day.

[Pericles]

I'm sure that none of these idiots realize that the US Code specifies that Confederate veterans are to be treated the same as Union veterans:

38 U.S. Code § 1501 - Definitions

(3) The term “Civil War veteran” includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term “active military or naval service” includes active service in those forces.

[AuH20]

If you really want to make people's head spin. Tell them this. The average Confederate soldier was fighting for the values embodied within the Declaration of Independence. Lets' examine the preamble in the DoI.


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Just wait until they go after the villainous white supremacist American Revolutionaries.

DHS has gone on the record several times declaring our founding fathers were "terrorists".

Guess we should rename the 4th as "Homeland pride day" and replace fireworks with confetti.

-t

[Pericles]

But the descendants of those villainous men still live. Our work here is not done. [/s]

As of 2014, there was one Civil War pension being paid to the daughter of a Civil War soldier.

[Carlybee]

DHS has gone on the record several times declaring our founding fathers were "terrorists".

Guess we should rename the 4th as "Homeland pride day" and replace fireworks with confetti.

-t

And lots of pretty feather boas



4314

[Peace&Freedom]

Might be interesting to see if a southern state or city, in response to the high-pressure intimidation campaign to bring down the flag, had the stones to actually run up a second Confederate flag to double down on their commitment to resisting a bullying central government.

[AuH20]

The ghost of Stonewall Jackson lives within............................................ .Kid Rock?!?!?!?

http://entertainthis.usatoday.com/2015/07/10/kid-rock-confederate-flag-protests/

[tangent4ronpaul]

They are going to tear down the flag pole too. :rolleyes:

-t

[AuH20]

Reaction from Dylan Roof forthcoming....

[nobody's_hero]

Does anyone now still think they dont intentionally want to start some sort of conflict within our own borders?

This nation is just as divided as it was 155 years ago.


Reaction from Dylan Roof forthcoming....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iz-8CSa9xj8

[TheCount]

http://media.giphy.com/media/tFK8urY6XHj2w/giphy.gif

[tangent4ronpaul]

They said the guy shouldn't have been able to buy a gun...

More gun control in 5, 4, 3, 2,,...

-t

[FunkBuddha]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdVhIbiIBC0

[Carlybee]

Meanwhile on FB


4315

[DamianTV]

WOW!

http://www.euronews.com/2015/07/09/russia-unveils-straight-flag/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJeDwkrUEAA8Joz.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CI113bNWgAAHr6M.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJEI1wMW8AA7ItS.jpg

Looks like US media is totally ignoring this.

-t

Of course they are! When true US History is swept under the rug, they do it quietly and purposefully. Remove Andrew Jackson so no one knows "He killed the Bank" (2nd United States Bank).

Banks are NOT National Saviors, they are National Destroyers!

[Peace&Freedom]

Florida county removes Confederate flag, flies it again after public outcry:

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/national/marion-county-commissioners-bring-back-confederate/nms7G/

[AuH20]

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/oh-my-slave-labor-built-this.jpg?w=500&h=750

[phill4paul]

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/oh-my-slave-labor-built-this.jpg?w=500&h=750

^^^ Valid point. Racist symbol. Most definitely. It is called the "White" house, no?

[Tywysog Cymru]

It shows maturity to recognize that you're nation/state/group/etc. has made mistakes in the past and to stop revising history to justify your nation/state/group/etc. Congratulations South Carolina!

[nobody's_hero]

It shows maturity to recognize that you're nation/state/group/etc. has made mistakes in the past and to stop revising history to justify your nation/state/group/etc. Congratulations South Carolina!

Because being enraged over the Tariff of Abominations was a mistake?

Oh wait, slavery slavery blah blah something slavery. Got it.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Because being enraged over the Tariff of Abominations was a mistake?

Oh wait, slavery slavery blah blah something slavery. Got it.

Read the declarations of secession. South Carolina has one and it was clear that slavery was the driving force behind secession.

[Dianne]

Crowd singing, "Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye". Shameful.

My niece, who happens to be gay and married a nice lady a couple of years ago in Conn. (I think), posted on her FB page inviting others to ride to Columbia with her to see this wonderful event. I couldn't help posting that slavery continued roughly 100 years under the U.S.A. flag (and still does), under the Confederate flag for four years. Which flag should come down?

[Carlybee]

It shows maturity to recognize that you're nation/state/group/etc. has made mistakes in the past and to stop revising history to justify your nation/state/group/etc. Congratulations South Carolina!

Not really. It just shows that you have acquiesced to the thought police. You'll be apologizing for the past until Hell freezes over.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Not really. It just shows that you have acquiesced to the thought police. You'll be apologizing for the past until Hell freezes over.

I'd love for the US government to apologize for engaging in imperialism for over a century. Apology is not always bad.

[Carlybee]

I'd love for the US government to apologize for engaging in imperialism for over a century. Apology is not always bad.

You know what's better than an apology? Stop doing the deed. Don't like imperialism, stop supporting imperialists. We stopped slavery, yet here we are still paying for the sins of our forebearers. Apology is nothing more than lip service. The race baiters don't care about apologies. They want power. They want reparations. And now they have managed to turn the collective guilt of sheep into a political chess move.

[Zippyjuan]

nm

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

For so long, as a resident of the North I believed the lies that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator and that the North was morally correct in their crusade. Until I started examining the historical record and discovered to my surprise that I was indeed incorrect in my original assumptions. I never knew that Lincoln has suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus for 13,000 citizens. I never knew Lincoln intentionally goaded South Carolina at Fort Sumter with a convoy of warships. You don't learn these type of critical details, even in parochial school.

Spiritually, despite my geographic location, I have become a confederate at heart.
Or the simple fact that the emancipation declaration wasn't "Declared" until a few years into the Civil War.
Or if someone would think critically on the subject, it wasn't the south invading the north, but instead the north invading the south, killing people and destroying towns simply because they wanted independence Pro slavery or not, I think getting slaughtered by someone simply because you disagree with them is much worse than being a slave.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

It shows maturity to recognize that you're nation/state/group/etc. has made mistakes in the past and to stop revising history to justify your nation/state/group/etc. Congratulations South Carolina!

The whole concept is stupid because slavery existed in America since the 1600's before the civil war took place, and it wasn't until after the civil war the heavily racist laws actually took place. As a matter of fact, MORE racism occurred under the U.S. banner than the Confederacy's. It's a non-debatable fact. So should we just dump the U.S. flag and bedazzle it with LGBT colors and a crappy vector lineart of MLK JR to show tolerance?

[Weston White]

^^^ Valid point. Racist symbol. Most definitely. It is called the "White" house, no?

I guess you missed the 2012 memo? Per Executive Order 31415, it is henceforth known as the "Hope and Change House".

[Weston White]

Read the declarations of secession. South Carolina has one and it was clear that slavery was the driving force behind secession.

If you read it carefully, you will note that the genuine concern was over the free-states subverting their constitutional duties, the failure of the national government to act, and the decrees of the political party that was about to take control of the Executive Branch to alienate the South: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp


We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.


On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

[nobody's_hero]

You know what's better than an apology? Stop doing the deed. Don't like imperialism, stop supporting imperialists. We stopped slavery, yet here we are still paying for the sins of our forebearers. Apology is nothing more than lip service. The race baiters don't care about apologies. They want power. They want reparations. And now they have managed to turn the collective guilt of sheep into a political chess move.

I +repped your previous comment before I saw this one and I think this one was worth more +rep. Oh well. 'I must wait a few years before +repping Carlybee again.'

[osan]

Spiritually, despite my geographic location, I have become a confederate at heart.

This makes me laugh. I remember when as a child I would see a civil war film, I would cheer and pray to see the confederates win. Similarly, I had such bile for the Union. I despised them and always reveled in seeing yankees die in battle.

I cannot say that things have changed in the intervening years. I must have been a confederate in a past life. It's the only explanation that makes any sense for a boy raised up in NYC.

[FloralScent]

Read the declarations of secession. South Carolina has one and it was clear that slavery was the driving force behind secession.

Read the Emancipation Proclamation. The states in rebellion had months to rejoin the Union and keep their slaves yet they did not.


...the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question.


- Andrew Jackson, 1832?


It was from no fear that the slave would be liberated that secession took place. The very party in power has professed to guarantee slavery forever if the South would but remain in the Union.

- memorial to Earl Russell, August 14, 1861


I could go on, but you've got nothing, so no need.

[Carlybee]

I +repped your previous comment before I saw this one and I think this one was worth more +rep. Oh well. 'I must wait a few years before +repping Carlybee again.'

Thank you. I should have added that they also want to dig up confederate bones and throw them in a grinder. Saw that comment on an article this morning.

[William Tell]

It shows maturity to recognize that you're nation/state/group/etc. has made mistakes in the past and to stop revising history to justify your nation/state/group/etc. Congratulations South Carolina!

Now its time to smash some Confederate headstones! Maybe sue Robert Duvall for being related to Robert E. Lee.

[AuH20]

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4021/on_reconsidering_the_southern_cause.aspx

[DFF]

Read the Emancipation Proclamation. The states in rebellion had months to rejoin the Union and keep their slaves yet they did not.

Which completely destroys the contention that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

The leftists know this is nonsense too, but nevertheless they continue spreading this lie because it makes the South look evil.

Whilst making the blue-bellies appear to be compassionate and noble liberators. :rolleyes:

[Carlybee]

Now its time to smash some Confederate headstones! Maybe sue Robert Duvall for being related to Robert E. Lee.

My gggrandfather served 2 stints in the Confederate army and is buried in North Carolina. I'm thinking if people start smashing there, they're going to have a fight on their hands.

[osan]

It's down. Have you noticed all of the difference that it makes yet?

I feel freer already!

[osan]

They are going to tear down the flag pole too. :rolleyes:

This whole affair only further nails down the fact that we are a nation primarily of idiots.

[ChiefJustice]

For so long, as a resident of the North I believed the lies that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator and that the North was morally correct in their crusade. Until I started examining the historical record and discovered to my surprise that I was indeed incorrect in my original assumptions. I never knew that Lincoln has suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus for 13,000 citizens. I never knew Lincoln intentionally goaded South Carolina at Fort Sumter with a convoy of warships. You don't learn these type of critical details, even in parochial school.

Spiritually, despite my geographic location, I have become a confederate at heart.
I don't know why you were under the impression that the North was a region of do gooders. Obviously not. But is that actually your reason for championing the Confederacy?!

The CSA was even worse.

[osan]

I don't know why you were under the impression that the North was a region of do gooders. Obviously not. But is that actually your reason for championing the Confederacy?!

The CSA was even worse.

Methinks you miss the actual point, though I will not speak for Au. What I see is not championing an institution now long become dust. The real issue is freedom TODAY. Freedom not only to fly whatever damned flag you see fit, but that to acknowledge and accurately retain the history an element of our past that is intimately tied to the more general freedoms we supposedly enjoy today.

I am sure the reasons for wanting the battle flag removed are varied. I am equally sure all those reasons are either born in foppish ignorance, or the agenda of snake-oil salesmen. You will forgive me if I am indelicate, but the people who were whining for this and who have cheered it are bottomlessly stupid American blacks who have been raised on a morbid diet of bittern anger and hatred, not to mention the entitlement fueled by the bile that has grown inside them as a raging cancer. Alongside those spiritually and mentally tainted freaks are the progressive liberals of all racial and ethic stripes such as the hispanics who share much of the same cultural diet of envy, laziness, anger, and blind hatred for "whites". Let us not forget the guilt-addled white progressives who, on their diet of cultural/political electric kool-aid, feel their burning guilt and shame, all synthetic, forced, and false, which has resulted in the rise of a different brand of self-loathing from the others. This one, rather than being implicit and vague such as in the case of blacks and hispanics of a certain vintage, is so very painfully explicit and especially bitter, what with all that talk of "white privilege" at the root of it.

Here I speak in the statistical voice, which addresses the mean, the average, the normal. Therefore, let you not start shrieking "racist!" at me... not that I care whether you do; it is for YOUR credibility I stand concerned :)

This nonsense is well out of control at this point. It is abundantly clear to me that we are now in the middle of that curve which now turns to its asymptotic rise, meaning we are either going to see the broader situation of living circumstance go very much worse for decent people in a very short period of time, or we as a nation are going to have it out. I mean real-deal, no shit, run for the hills because everything's gone dangerously crazy, physical violence of what is plenty close enough to a civil war to call it precisely that. In that case, the ever furthering encroachments of one group upon the other will not be tolerated. The trespassers will not back down without the force of physical non-equivocation. It should take no rocket surgery to see precisely where we are heading, given the current circumstances, and at this point I see no way out that does not involve utter capitulation of one side or the other. I see no way that the willful nitwits known as "progressive liberals", whether they be blacks, hispanics, guilt-hobbled whites,or any of the others, will suddenly see in a flash the true nature of their idiotic mindsets and come back to reason. What incentive is there for them to back off? I see none, and I further see every reason for them to go for the gusto on the perhaps flawed assumption that the "government" is going to make it all happen, even if it must kill and confiscate its way to the reparations deemed owed to the class of trespassing blood-ticks. Nor shall I will hold my breath waiting for that moment those of this new aggressor-class miraculously discover a sense of respect for themselves, much less one for those whom their spirits and lives are bottomlessly consumed with the eternal fires of raging envy, hatred, and the demand for a free lunch.

The mental positions of the two subsets stand in diametric opposition. The physical positions are now in strong motion to align with those of the respective minds... at least on ONE of the sides - that of the other remaining to be seen. This can lead nowhere good, save violence, because at some point the good people of America will decide to fight for their lives and once that fur starts to fly, I doubt it will be to return to a position of compromise with the aggressor-class. At least, I hope not. If any sense remains, the fight will be to push the aggressors right back against the opposite wall and to their proper place in the scheme of things. That, or to kill them to the man, which to be frank I see as probably being necessary, though I will not quite commit to that extreme... yet. But always remind yourself that mind is everything and memory rarely dismisses its own history. This is perhaps why in our dimly lit past we have accounts of victors slaughtering the vanquished to the man. This is what my Sicilian step-father, may he RIP, called the "Sicilian vendetta", where you wipe your enemy out because the dead can never come up behind you in a dark alley to take revenge.

It is finally come to that point to which I could not previously assert the inevitability of so stark a choice of futures: fight or surrender, but I believe we are now there or will be in a matter of months and not years. Theye are moving with vast boldness now, rolling out one bandwagon after another, and with Bammy dropping hints of "reparations", well... is the sky not the limit, anymore? Those with eyes to see know that war is not only declared, but is being waged in an up-ramping manner, the angle steepening by the day.

I wait with some bate of breath to see whether Americans... whether I, will have the guts to do what needs doing here to spare the nation from ruin. Time will tell.

[Tywysog Cymru]

The whole concept is stupid because slavery existed in America since the 1600's before the civil war took place, and it wasn't until after the civil war the heavily racist laws actually took place. As a matter of fact, MORE racism occurred under the U.S. banner than the Confederacy's. It's a non-debatable fact. So should we just dump the U.S. flag and bedazzle it with LGBT colors and a crappy vector lineart of MLK JR to show tolerance?

The Roman Empire had slavery, but no one finds the Roman Empire offensive because Rome wasn't founded to preserve slavery. The CSA was, as is evidenced by the declarations of secession and Jefferson Davis statements. It was the main concern for the southern politicians. The USA had racism and slavery but that was not the reason it broke free of Britain.


If you read it carefully, you will note that the genuine concern was over the free-states subverting their constitutional duties, the failure of the national government to act, and the decrees of the political party that was about to take control of the Executive Branch to alienate the South: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

The only reason they cared about state's rights was because they were concerned that they wouldn't be allowed to own slaves anymore. They had no respect for the northern states that nullified the fugitive slave acts.


Read the Emancipation Proclamation. The states in rebellion had months to rejoin the Union and keep their slaves yet they did not.


The southern politicians were smart, the north was becoming more powerful by the year and the influence of the South was waning. They knew that it was only a matter of time before the free states would have enough influence to abolish slavery. If they had won the war they likely would have been able to preserve slavery for a few decades at least.


Now its time to smash some Confederate headstones! Maybe sue Robert Duvall for being related to Robert E. Lee.

When did I advocate that? I don't want to destroy history. I just don't want the struggle for liberty (especially not the socially conservative wing of the liberty movement) to be associated with the Confederacy.

[Peace&Freedom]

The Roman Empire had slavery, but no one finds the Roman Empire offensive because Rome wasn't founded to preserve slavery. The CSA was, as is evidenced by the declarations of secession and Jefferson Davis statements. It was the main concern for the southern politicians. The USA had racism and slavery but that was not the reason it broke free of Britain...

When did I advocate that? I don't want to destroy history. I just don't want the struggle for liberty (especially not the socially conservative wing of the liberty movement) to be associated with the Confederacy.

"In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, historian James McPherson reported on his reading of more than 25,000 letters and more than 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War for Southern Independence and concluded that Confederate soldiers (very few of whom owned slaves) "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government."

The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government," writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/04/thomas-dilorenzo/libertarians-should-love-the-confederate-flag/

[Tywysog Cymru]

"In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, historian James McPherson reported on his reading of more than 25,000 letters and more than 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War for Southern Independence and concluded that Confederate soldiers (very few of whom owned slaves) "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government."

The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government," writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/04/thomas-dilorenzo/libertarians-should-love-the-confederate-flag/

I never said anything about the soldiers, or even the generals. I'm talking about the politicians. The US soldiers in Iraq didn't think the same way as the politicians did at the time, and the same applies to the CSA.

[SovereignMN]

I never said anything about the soldiers, or even the generals. I'm talking about the politicians. The US soldiers in Iraq didn't think the same way as the politicians did at the time, and the same applies to the CSA.

The flag they took down was the one the soldiers flew in battle. It wasn't the national flag of the confederacy. It was the flag of the soldiers.

[jmdrake]

Because being enraged over the Tariff of Abominations was a mistake?

Oh wait, slavery slavery blah blah something slavery. Got it.

That tariff was repealed decades before the civil war. When it was in effect only South Carolina actively resisted. The other southern states were not willing to go up against fellow slaveholder and president Andrew Jackson. At the time of the civil war tariffs were at historic lows. A protectionist tariff was passed after secession. Had the south not seceded, or at least left their senators there to vote against it, it probably wouldn't have passed.

[Peace&Freedom]

I never said anything about the soldiers, or even the generals. I'm talking about the politicians. The US soldiers in Iraq didn't think the same way as the politicians did at the time, and the same applies to the CSA.

Most politicians of the time, union or confederate, supported or tolerated slavery, and most of them believed blacks were not the equal of whites. Since most pols on both sides held the same view of slavery and race, that was not the basis for the conflict, so some leaders mentioning their support of slavery is moot.

Most participants in the war on the Confederate side expressed the conflict was about their opposition to tyranny, as documented in the quote. And the state secessionist statements do mention the multiple constitutional violations performed by the federal government against the south, i.e., tyranny, as their motivation for separating and fighting.

[osan]

The southern politicians were smart, the north was becoming more powerful by the year and the influence of the South was waning. They knew that it was only a matter of time before the free states would have enough influence to abolish slavery. If they had won the war they likely would have been able to preserve slavery for a few decades at least.

Your understanding of macroeconomics is, apparently, very much lacking. The institution of slavery was already well doomed by the time the war broke out. Slaves were a major expense and PITA to keep. The economic realities of that era were making the acquisition and maintenance of slaves rapidly untenable for the landowners. The cotton gin alone was in the process of eliminating an entire sector of need for slave labor. The Industrial Revolution was rapidly coming to full-swing and invention was rife in the land. Slavery would have been perhaps 90% or more dead by 1870 because there would have been no economic basis for having them. For that which remained, which probably would have been nothing more than slaves to service the household, the economies of that reality would likely also have been changed, though perhaps more slowly. But in the end the result would have been the same: it is cheaper and EASIER to hire servants than to maintain slaves. Slave is costly to acquire. Once the investment is made, when slave becomes ill, it must be protected with the expense of doctors, medicines, treatments, etc. When slave dies, body must be dealt with, which is either further PITA, expense, or both.

To assert that slavery would have gone on for decades is almost ridiculous. Southerners were not stupid, save that they fought honorably against a foe devoid of all honor.

I agree that the CSA was nothing about which to crow, but it was THEIR right to secede. Forcing them to remain in the Union was an ultimate act of slaving. The victors were, on this point, the ultimately filthy hypocrites.

[jmdrake]

Your understanding of macroeconomics is, apparently, very much lacking. The institution of slavery was already well doomed by the time the war broke out. Slaves were a major expense and PITA to keep. The economic realities of that era were making the acquisition and maintenance of slaves rapidly untenable for the landowners. The cotton gin alone was in the process of eliminating an entire sector of need for slave labor. The Industrial Revolution was rapidly coming to full-swing and invention was rife in the land. Slavery would have been perhaps 90% or more dead by 1870 because there would have been no economic basis for having them. For that which remained, which probably would have been nothing more than slaves to service the household, the economies of that reality would likely also have been changed, though perhaps more slowly. But in the end the result would have been the same: it is cheaper and EASIER to hire servants than to maintain slaves. Slave is costly to acquire. Once the investment is made, when slave becomes ill, it must be protected with the expense of doctors, medicines, treatments, etc. When slave dies, body must be dealt with, which is either further PITA, expense, or both.

To assert that slavery would have gone on for decades is almost ridiculous. Southerners were not stupid, save that they fought honorably against a foe devoid of all honor.

I agree that the CSA was nothing about which to crow, but it was THEIR right to secede. Forcing them to remain in the Union was an ultimate act of slaving. The victors were, on this point, the ultimately filthy hypocrites.

:rolleyes: Oh really?

https://www.asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/history-of-mechanical-engineering/how-the-cotton-gin-started-the-civil-war
How the Cotton Gin
Started the Civil War
Share ASME Share on linkedinShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing ServicesShare on print
Cotton Gin
Sept 2009; Designing a new machine or improving a process can take a fair amount of thought and consideration; once prototyped, it can still take years or even decades to be commercialized and have an impact on society. Sometimes, however, the entire process can be marvelously quick, easy, and world-changing.

Take, for example, the cotton gin.

Eli Whitney conceived this device almost on the spur of the moment. Yet, for all its fame and historic significance, one rarely sees an illustration of this legendary machine. Knowing as much as we do about its reputation and being conditioned to expect a revelation, when present-day engineers see the primitive hardware of the machine, it’s usually a bit of a letdown. Although simple in design, the cotton gin solved a pressing economic problem and transformed both agricultural and industrial America. Only after comparing the economy of the American South before and after the introduction of the gin can we appreciate its historic impact.

Sketch of Cotton Gin
A simple mechanism with complex consequences, the cotton gin, shown as it appeared in Eli Whitney’s patent and on the previous page in a perspective drawing, changed the economics of the South and set a course to the Civil War.
Keeping Cotton Lucrative
Before the cotton gin, slavery had been on its way out—farmers realized it was more expensive to maintain slaves, compared to the value of what they could produce. Cotton was a troublesome crop anyway; its fiber could only be separated from the sticky, embedded seeds by hand, a grueling and exhausting process.

This changed dramatically, of course, with the advent of the cotton gin. Suddenly cotton became a lucrative crop and a major export for the South. However, because of this increased demand, many more slaves were needed to grow cotton and harvest the fields. Slave ownership became a fiery national issue and eventually led to the Civil War.

It was only a matter of chance that Whitney became involved with cotton growing. After graduating from Yale University in 1792 with hopes of becoming a lawyer, he traveled to South Carolina to accept a job as a tutor. His landlady owned a plantation and raised some cotton. After getting into a discussion with several plantation owners about the fact there was no economical method of separating seeds from cotton fiber, Whitney recognized it could be done mechanically.

He spent the next few months building a prototype. The gin itself comprised a rotating drum with wire hooks or ratchet-like teeth that pulled cotton fibers between the teeth of a comb. The comb had teeth spaced too closely for seeds to pass through. Only one aspect of the machine can be regarded as serious mechanisms design. A second drum, rotating faster than the first and carrying brushes, served to dislodge the cotton fibers from the first. This was driven, along with the larger drum, by a belt-and-pulley arrangement typically having a four-to-one ratio. Cotton bolls were loaded into a hopper, which guided them to the face of the comb. After being pulled through by the toothed cylinder, the separated cotton fibers emerged at the left and the seeds collected to the right.

Whitney's design was almost immediately stolen and counterfeited a vast number of times. After years of patent litigation he received only a tiny fraction of the wealth to which he was entitled. He continued to invent. Ten years later, because of his reputation as an innovator, he won a government contract to produce 10,000 muskets—a previously unheard-of number. To manufacture the gun locks, Whitney invented the milling machine that is the staple of machine shop production today.

Although Whitney’s invention only involved a few hundred kilograms of matter, it shaped the future of a nation and its people; it is rare that a single contrivance has such a profound social effect.

Slavery is still profitable even in the 21st century.

[jmdrake]

"In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, historian James McPherson reported on his reading of more than 25,000 letters and more than 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War for Southern Independence and concluded that Confederate soldiers (very few of whom owned slaves) "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government."

The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government," writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/04/thomas-dilorenzo/libertarians-should-love-the-confederate-flag/

And yet they supported a tyrannical government that enslaved white men with a draft. Gee if the southern cause was so righteous and loved when did they have to force people to fight for it? And why did areas in the south that were too mountainous for agriculture (and hence not profitable for slavery) secede from the south? (North Alabama and West Virginia for example). Poor whites who lived in slave holding areas often works as overseers and indirectly benefited from the institution of slavery even though the slave owners at times treated those poor whites worse than slaves. They convinced these poor deceived souls that they had "liberty" because they were better off than the blacks.

[osan]

:rolleyes: Oh really?

Yes, really. You post an article that, as best I can tell, supports my assertion.


...the cotton gin solved a pressing economic problem and transformed both agricultural and industrial America.

A simple mechanism with complex consequences... changed the economics of the South and set a course to the Civil War...

This changed dramatically, of course, with the advent of the cotton gin. Suddenly cotton became a lucrative crop and a major export for the South. However, because of this increased demand, many more slaves were needed to grow cotton and harvest the fields. Slave ownership became a fiery national issue and eventually led to the Civil War.

And this, in the context of the vastness of invention, was a mere economic blip that was destined to be rubbed away in toto in the wake of the economic reality that keeping slaves to pick the cotton was becoming rapidly untenable, economically speaking.

In the early days of the "new world" there was perhaps economic advantage in slave holdings because of a dearth of available labor. Not that many people wanted to emigrate, so in typical human fashion they were forced. Brilliant, of course. /sarc

Once America had been well established and hordes of Euros began flooding in, the days for slavery became well numbered because there were then plenty of people willing to work at a wage to do the jobs needed. No need to house them, feed them, cure them, bury them. That was all on the worker, so even if the $-cost were the same or even a little higher, it was worth it to the employer because he no longer had this huge pain in his ass called the "slave".


Slavery is still profitable even in the 21st century.

Depends on the working definition of "slavery", I suspect.

Slavery is obviously profitable today, but you do not address the "why" of it or the form. I doubt it is quite the same as it was. There is the white sex slavery, as well as that of children in places like Thailand. That cannot be compared with the slavery in the states in any reasonable way. The work of the slave was, slavery aside, legitimate in anyone's eyes: farming, husbandry, blacksmithing, and so forth. Keeping white women and children as sex slaves is probably not going to pass muster with a great proportion of the world's population, even today.

As for other slaves, I cannot really say much as I am not terribly familiar with the purposes of keeping them. I don't need to be. Places like Sudan are economic shit holes, the circumstances there being atypical of those in the rest of the world in the extreme. Their highly retarded economy may well be such that slavery similar to that once present in America would be profitable. Freak outlier, it would appear. I don't see how that constitutes a legitimate example.

Now, if you are referring to the wage slavery of the vast majority of the rest of the world, then we are on the same wavelength. I cannot be sure, though, because we have not agreed on a working definition of "slavery", an error of which we are both guilty.

[jmdrake]

Yes, really. You post an article that, as best I can tell, supports my assertion.

No it doesn't. It goes against your assertion. Slavery was on the way out before the cotton gin. The cotton gin gave slavery a new lease on life because while it cut demand for labor in one area of cotton production it greatly increased the demand in other areas. And slavery is still profitable and I'm not just talking about sex slavery.



Once America had been well established and hordes of Euros began flooding in, the days for slavery became well numbered because there were then plenty of people willing to work at a wage to do the jobs needed. No need to house them, feed them, cure them, bury them. That was all on the worker, so even if the $-cost were the same or even a little higher, it was worth it to the employer because he no longer had this huge pain in his ass called the "slave".

You are grossly over estimating the cost of owning slaves by ignoring the fact that slaves made their own clothes, grew their own food and built their own houses. Imagine having a horse that was its own blacksmith and cleaned its own stables.



Depends on the working definition of "slavery", I suspect.

I'm talking about people being forced to live and work at a particular place for no pay. That still happens.

http://mic.com/articles/104458/this-is-what-slavery-looks-like-in-the-21st-century



Slavery is obviously profitable today, but you do not address the "why" of it or the form. I doubt it is quite the same as it was. There is the white sex slavery, as well as that of children in places like Thailand. That cannot be compared with the slavery in the states in any reasonable way. The work of the slave was, slavery aside, legitimate in anyone's eyes: farming, husbandry, blacksmithing, and so forth. Keeping white women and children as sex slaves is probably not going to pass muster with a great proportion of the world's population, even today.

There are millions of people in slavery today that are not involved in sex slavery.

That said, you are undermining your own point by pointing out that southern slaves were involved in farming, husbandry, blacksmithing etc. They were doing the very work needed to feed, cloth and house themselves making the "expense" of keeping them negligible.



As for other slaves, I cannot really say much as I am not terribly familiar with the purposes of keeping them. I don't need to be. Places like Sudan are economic shit holes, the circumstances there being atypical of those in the rest of the world in the extreme. Their highly retarded economy may well be such that slavery similar to that once present in America would be profitable. Freak outlier, it would appear. I don't see how that constitutes a legitimate example.

And yet people are still kept in slavery (illegally) in the U.S. and not just for sex.


Now, if you are referring to the wage slavery of the vast majority of the rest of the world, then we are on the same wavelength. I cannot be sure, though, because we have not agreed on a working definition of "slavery", an error of which we are both guilty.

I'm not talking about "wage slavery." If you can quit your job, you are not a slave. Now the people working in China at the Apple factory that installed "suicide nets" probably count as slaves whether they are "paid" or not. If your company has to prevent its workers from killing themselves in mass then they are probably not allowing people to quit.

[Peace&Freedom]

And yet they supported a tyrannical government that enslaved white men with a draft. Gee if the southern cause was so righteous and loved when did they have to force people to fight for it? And why did areas in the south that were too mountainous for agriculture (and hence not profitable for slavery) secede from the south? (North Alabama and West Virginia for example). Poor whites who lived in slave holding areas often works as overseers and indirectly benefited from the institution of slavery even though the slave owners at times treated those poor whites worse than slaves. They convinced these poor deceived souls that they had "liberty" because they were better off than the blacks.

No disagreement here, that the confederate view was not completely coherent, and echoed the incoherency of the Founders, who also fought for liberty while retaining slaves. That the confederates in the mountainous areas seceded despite their not being able to support slavery, actually clearly shows their support for secession was based on reasons other than slavery.

[osan]

I'm not talking about "wage slavery." If you can quit your job, you are not a slave. Now the people working in China at the Apple factory that installed "suicide nets" probably count as slaves whether they are "paid" or not. If your company has to prevent its workers from killing themselves in mass then they are probably not allowing people to quit.

I don't know if you are just not seeing that we are not that far apart in our points of view or you're being stubborn. I don't see a large gap here, save the conclusions are somewhat different. I'm not saying slavery doesn't exist today and nowhere and at no time have I. You have apparently ignored the bit about the spike in slavery in the USA due to the cotton gin being just that - a spike. The automation of many tasks in a broad spectrum of industries rendered slavery obsolete in the face of a nation that had a growing, eager, and fairly intelligent workforce population. Why keep slaves when there are literally tens of millions of people who will work for you at overall costs that are less than those incurred with the use of slaves?

Your comparison of those times with today is invalid. Why are slaves used today? It may be lower cost, or it may be something else. Perhaps in time the Chinese, for example, began getting wise to the scam. Perhaps they stopped wanting to work for slave wages. That results in a shortage, which shoots marketing of China as the place to go for industry all to shit. The Chinese government is run by a raft of scum worse even than our own in many respects. So what is their solution? Force, of course.

In the USA force is used because it IS cheaper than the $15/hr burger flipper. So what does this tell you? We went from an era where slaves HAD to be used if the things we wanted to accomplished were to happen before the Second Coming (seen from the POV of the businessmen of the day), to one where it was actually more profitable to use non-slave labor, now back to one where at least in some sectors slavery in some forms has made a comeback. That should tell you many important things about where the world has been and where seems to be going, which is nowhere good.

At any rate, forms of slavery have always been in place because government IS force. Nobody is special there. We're all put over the wood.

ETA: "If you can quit your job, you are not a slave". Not quite true. When to quit becomes tantamount to death or devastation, I would call that slavery of a sort.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Most politicians of the time, union or confederate, supported or tolerated slavery, and most of them believed blacks were not the equal of whites. Since most pols on both sides held the same view of slavery and race, that was not the basis for the conflict, so some leaders mentioning their support of slavery is moot.

Most participants in the war on the Confederate side expressed the conflict was about their opposition to tyranny, as documented in the quote. And the state secessionist statements do mention the multiple constitutional violations performed by the federal government against the south, i.e., tyranny, as their motivation for separating and fighting.

I can't come to any other conclusion, after reading the declarations of secession, and doing much research on this subject, than that slavery was the primary (not the only) motivation behind secession. The Southern planter class was scared of northern abolitionists taking away their slaves, and the election of a President who belonged to an abolitionist party was the last straw for them.


Your understanding of macroeconomics is, apparently, very much lacking. The institution of slavery was already well doomed by the time the war broke out. Slaves were a major expense and PITA to keep. The economic realities of that era were making the acquisition and maintenance of slaves rapidly untenable for the landowners. The cotton gin alone was in the process of eliminating an entire sector of need for slave labor. The Industrial Revolution was rapidly coming to full-swing and invention was rife in the land. Slavery would have been perhaps 90% or more dead by 1870 because there would have been no economic basis for having them. For that which remained, which probably would have been nothing more than slaves to service the household, the economies of that reality would likely also have been changed, though perhaps more slowly. But in the end the result would have been the same: it is cheaper and EASIER to hire servants than to maintain slaves. Slave is costly to acquire. Once the investment is made, when slave becomes ill, it must be protected with the expense of doctors, medicines, treatments, etc. When slave dies, body must be dealt with, which is either further PITA, expense, or both.

Slavery was profitable for those who controlled the political institutions in the South, and that was what kept it alive. I would find it hard to believe that those who spoke so passionately in support of slavery in 1860 and the years immediately prior would all of a sudden abandon the institution by 1870. Remember that plantation slavery persisted in Brazil until 1888.


To assert that slavery would have gone on for decades is almost ridiculous. Southerners were not stupid, save that they fought honorably against a foe devoid of all honor.

Both sides committed war crimes. IIRC the Confederates treated captured black soldiers as rebellious slaves and had them executed.

[Weston White]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbvDRY0O30E&spfreload=10


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGKD-hjpn2Q&spfreload=10


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6SOdFrvWpI

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I think the "secession was all about slavery" arguments are stupid and I will tell you why. Do you think Lincoln would have let the south split even if slavery had not existed in America?

[AuH20]

I think it was very revealing how the South conducted their military operations as opposed to the North. Did you see Robert E. Lee employing scorched earth tactics while rolling up through Maryland and Pennsylvania? He was the epitome of a Southern gentleman.

[paleocon1]

.....................

The CSA was even worse.

Facts not in evidence.

[paleocon1]

I think it was very revealing how the South conducted their military operations as opposed to the North. Did you see Robert E. Lee employing scorched earth tactics while rolling up through Maryland and Pennsylvania? He was the epitome of a Southern gentleman.

Whereas Lincoln's Generals were murderous lunatics guilty of all the crimes we hanged Germans and Saddam for EXCEPT use of poison gas on civilians and not guilty there only because war gas had not yet been invented.

[paleocon1]

I think the "secession was all about slavery" arguments are stupid and I will tell you why. Do you think Lincoln would have let the south split even if slavery had not existed in America?

not without another source of federal revenue

[AuH20]

Whereas Lincoln's Generals were murderous lunatics guilty of all the crimes we hanged Germans and Saddam for EXCEPT use of poison gas on civilians and not guilty there only because war gas had not yet been invented.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/11/26/manly-honor-part-v-honor-in-the-american-south/


Lee was the perfect example of the South’s genteel honor code and what William Alexander Percy called the “broad-sword tradition:” “a dedication to manly valor in battle; coolness under fire; sacrifice of self to succor and protect comrades, family, and country; magnamity; gracious manners; prudence in council; deference to ladies; and finally, stoic acceptance of what Providence has dictated.” He had also served and greatly distinguished himself in the United States Army for 32 years, so much so, that as the Civil War loomed, Lincoln offered Lee command of the Union forces. Lee was torn; in the days before secession, he wrote, “I wish to live under no other government & there is no sacrifice I am not ready to make for the preservation of the Union save that of honor.” Lee did not favor secession and wished for a peaceable solution instead; but his home state of Virginia seceded, and he was thus faced with the decision to remain loyal to the Union and take up arms against his people, or break with the Union to fight against his former comrades. He chose the latter. Lee’s wife (who privately sympathized with the Union cause) said this of her husband’s decision: “[He] has wept tears of blood over this terrible war, but as a man of honor and a Virginian, he must follow the destiny of his State.” In a traditional honor culture, loyalty to your honor group takes precedence over all other demands — even those of one’s own conscience.

Many other Southerners of divided loyalties made the same choice as Lee. United in opposition to the encroachment of outsiders, the perceived threat to their autonomy, and simply the necessity of showing honor by adopting an aggressive stance and fighting when insulted, the vast majority of white Southerners, whether slave-owners or not, took up arms for the Confederacy. Because of their shared honor code, there was, at least at first, a great deal of unity in the “solid South,” and less of the socioeconomic clashes that arose between the gentlemen and the roughs in the Union Army. For example, while the average personal wealth for company officers in the Confederate Army was $88,500, for noncoms and privates it was $760 – an incredible gulf. And yet company officers were elected by troops themselves – showing that they saw such men as their natural leaders.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I think the "secession was all about slavery" arguments are stupid and I will tell you why. Do you think Lincoln would have let the south split even if slavery had not existed in America?

No, but I don't see how that disproves that the South seceded over slavery.

[Southron]

No, but I don't see how that disproves that the South seceded over slavery.

It doesn't matter why they seceded if they had the right to do.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

It doesn't matter why they seceded if they had the right to do.

Exactly my point. As if saying the south hard the right to secede from the union is null because they had slavery at the time. And since people seem to hate the south so much they should support them seceding again! It's like being in a relationship where your significant other begs you to stay with them, then they stab you and spit in your face while complaining you're with them.

Does anyone out there honestly believe the south would still have slavery if the Confederacy existed today? These mental midgets never put anything into a historical perspective. That was the way it was back then. It would only be a matter of time until slavery ended in the south, Confederacy or not. Every other civilized country began to end slavery around the same time as America.

[Tywysog Cymru]

It doesn't matter why they seceded if they had the right to do.

Yes it does. Let's say a group of states seceded to create an Communist nation. It's their right to do so, but we shouldn't celebrate the nation they build.


Exactly my point. As if saying the south hard the right to secede from the union is null because they had slavery at the time.

When did I say that?


And since people seem to hate the south so much they should support them seceding again! It's like being in a relationship where your significant other begs you to stay with them, then they stab you and spit in your face while complaining you're with them.

I like many things about the South, and not all southerners like the CSA. In my town I would imagine that the majority of people living on my side of the railroad would see the flag as a symbol of heritage while almost everyone on the other side would see it as a symbol of hate. IIRC over half of the African-American population lives in the South, and I've never seen a black person, even the ones I know who hate Obama, fly that flag.


Does anyone out there honestly believe the south would still have slavery if the Confederacy existed today?

I never said that.


These mental midgets never put anything into a historical perspective. That was the way it was back then.

Am I a "mental midget?"


It would only be a matter of time until slavery ended in the south, Confederacy or not.

That is true, but when would it end? I can't imagine that it would be before 1890. Slavery was protected by the Constitution so it would be very hard to get rid of it.


Every other civilized country began to end slavery around the same time as America.

Most of them had already done that decades before. Brazil abolished slavery in 1888 because it was still profitable. America would have abolished slavery before the European countries if it wasn't for the states south of Pennsylvania.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

According to civilwar.org
2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty. Taken as a percentage of today's population, the toll would have risen as high as 6 million souls.
Surely 2% of the entire population of the country DYING is of some consolation to people who are still "Mah feelings" over the past and slavery. A majority of that population died specifically during the act of FREEING them. Yet the same descendents of "whites" who fought to free the "blacks" are vilified as oppressors. See in PC culture you can't be recognized for anything good, it's only bad, negative things. Who cares if you cure aids, world hunger, and saved the fucking planet from a meteor. You said something sexist against women so all the good things you've done mean shit.

[osan]

I think it was very revealing how the South conducted their military operations as opposed to the North. Did you see Robert E. Lee employing scorched earth tactics while rolling up through Maryland and Pennsylvania? He was the epitome of a Southern gentleman.

Absolutely. He was a consummate gentleman and he held his troops to gentlemanly comportment. The North was manned mainly by pragmatists who would stoop to any depth to win. That is why they won: for them there was no plumb too deep, no outrage beyond consideration.