The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered - Chuck Baldwin

[Anti Federalist]

The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered

Published: Thursday, July 9, 2015

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3336/The-Confederate-Flag-Needs-To-Be-Raised-Not-Lowered.aspx

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 America’s 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 Madison’s 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 didn’t 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 Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s 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 Lincoln’s 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 nation’s 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. Lincoln’s 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: Lincoln’s 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 isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.



Lincoln’s 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 don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?



It’s 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 Lincoln’s 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 Maxwell’s 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?



That’s 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 didn’t 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 America’s 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. That’s 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 didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s 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 Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:



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 Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.



Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.

[Brett85]

I'm beginning to rethink my position on this. I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with Chuck's view of history entirely, but it certainly seems to be far more complex than how our history books today treat the subject, that the south was fighting only to preserve slavery and the north was fighting to abolish it.

[Ronin Truth]

Sic 'em, Chuck. GRRRRR!

The winners always get to write the "official" history, whether it's true or not.

[erowe1]

Mostly good points. But not an argument for raising the Confederate flag.

[wizardwatson]

Powerful stuff. Kudos to Pastor Weaver whom Baldwin credits with compiling most of the information contained here from his "The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag" sermon.

I did not know that the 'X' in the flag symbolized St. Andrew's Cross. The connection to same-sex marriage passing does indeed make this whole fiasco reverberate an even MORE eerie note in that light.

But ultimately Christianity is about "truth". And certainly the truth lost when just looking at the confederate flag debacle. And articles like this, although powerful, never seem to travel quite that far.

[AuH20]

The Young Turks Know Better! SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSaaaaaaa............SLAAAAAAAA VEEERY!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM5CTsNT3l0

[AuH20]

I need this van!!!! Maybe outfit it with a few strategically placed Marshall Amps. And then play the following on LOOP on volume level 11. It could also probably use some armor fortification if you ever have to drive through an urban area.


http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5V9bWssrx0o/maxresdefault.jpg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf8S38SJqU0

[DFF]

The left claims that the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery and racism.

While ignoring the fact that today, virtually no-one, not even so-called right-wing extremist groups, view it in this light.

Rather they see it as a symbol of rebellion against an oppressive government.

It's really no different than than Texas' "Come and take it!" flag.

So all this propaganda about it representing a desire for the return of slavery is straight up bull.

[Sola_Fide]

He makes some compelling points in that article. I still disagree with the neo-confederates. There was good and bad in the Confederacy. How about the Confederacy's central bank? I'm sure no one here would support that.

[Anti Federalist]

He makes some compelling points in that article. I still disagree with the neo-confederates. There was good and bad in the Confederacy. How about the Confederacy's central bank? I'm sure no one here would support that.

No, not at all.

I think the whole point of all of this is to ask, precisely, where it is written that admission into the union is a one way ticket, forever.

I would certainly not stop, say, California, if it wanted to break away to become a Soviet style gulag.

In fact, I would welcome it.

Go, good riddance, and take Ill-Annoy and New Jermany with you, thanks so much.

[Sola_Fide]

No, not at all.

I think the whole point of all of this is to ask, precisely, where it is written that admission into the union is a one way ticket, forever.

I would certainly not stop, say, California, if it wanted to break away to become a Soviet style gulag.

In fact, I would welcome it.

Go, good riddance, and take Ill-Annoy and New Jermany with you, thanks so much.

Oh yeah. Agree there.

[surf]

So all this propaganda about it representing a desire for the return of slavery is straight up bull.i'm kind of with Rand here (which is strange). he said something along the lines of it representing a "symbol of human bondage and slavery."

this could be one of those little things (first they came for the confederate flag...), but i'm surprisingly ok with it going away.

[William R]

bump

[Carlybee]

i'm kind of with Rand here (which is strange). he said something along the lines of it representing a "symbol of human bondage and slavery."

this could be one of those little things (first they came for the confederate flag...), but i'm surprisingly ok with it going away.


I'm not because it won't stop there and it hasn't. Now they want to dig up the grave of a Confederate general. In my city they want to rename schools and streets all at taxpayer expense. It will never end because these people will never ever be happy until the whole country has become one big Fuqtard utopia.

[Brett85]

I'm not because it won't stop there and it hasn't. Now they want to dig up the grave of a Confederate general. In my city they want to rename schools and streets all at taxpayer expense. It will never end because these people will never ever be happy until the whole country has become one big Fuqtard utopia.

Yeah, the slippery slope effect is real. You were right about your predictions of what would happen. If you give the left an inch, they'll take a mile.

[Pericles]

The left claims that the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery and racism.

While ignoring the fact that today, virtually no-one, not even so-called right-wing extremist groups, view it in this light.

Rather they see it as a symbol of rebellion against an oppressive government.

It's really no different than than Texas' "Come and take it!" flag.

So all this propaganda about it representing a desire for the return of slavery is straight up bull.

Flags are powerful symbols. One symbology of the Confederate flag is that there was a point in the history of the United States, that several states and millions of people found the US Government to be so tyrannical that they did something about it.

That is the symbology those people want erased.

[tod evans]

There's no shortage of Stars-n-Bars in the Ozarks......

[DFF]

Flags are powerful symbols. One symbology of the Confederate flag is that there was a point in the history of the United States, that several states and millions of people found the US Government to be so tyrannical that they did something about it.

That is the symbology those people want erased.

I agree. This is what the move to ban the flag is all about.

"Racism" is just a convenient excuse.

[Carlybee]

Go check out this lovely Facebook profile if you want to see the real nasty side of where this could head. Just search Nocturnus Libertus.

*since I posted this she made her page private. It was basically a black militant page showing black people wiping their butts with the American flag and calling for violence against Whitey. They didn't like Obama either.

[AuH20]

Go check out this lovely Facebook profile if you want to see the real nasty side of where this could head. Just search Nocturnus Libertus.

Black Panthers vs. White Supremacists. What could possibly go wrong? :D

[TheCount]

The left claims that the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery and racism.

While ignoring the fact that today, virtually no-one, not even so-called right-wing extremist groups, view it in this light.

Explain to me, then, why the KKK is protesting it coming down.

[cajuncocoa]

Explain to me, then, why the KKK is protesting it coming down.There's no question it's used as a symbol of racism in many cases.

[AuH20]

Explain to me, then, why the KKK is protesting it coming down.

because they usurped the symbol for the goals of White Supremacy. You have to remember that the Ku Klux Klan was originally a harmless fraternity of sorts formed by Confederate officers that grew into something quite fearsome. Not soon after you had various unassociated chapters popping up that were adamant about terrorizing blacks and Northern 'carpetbaggers' as revenge for what Union General Phil Sheridan had done to the Shenandoah Valley as well as Sherman's infamous March to the Sea. It was eventually outlawed by 1868, but reappeared several years later in 1915.

[Carlybee]

Explain to me, then, why the KKK is protesting it coming down.

The KKK hijacked it. They originally flew the US flag. They are the ones who have helped perpetuate the perception that the South would like to relive the days of slavery. They probably wish there was still slavery. Matter of fact, I'm pretty sure they do but they are not representative of the majority of Southerners. They are no better than any other race baiter. It's what they do. They aren't protesting it coming down for any other reason than to escalate a race war.

[AuH20]

Does anyone think a luminary like Robert E. Lee would associate with the Ku Klux Klan? You must remember that he was initially offered command of the Union Army and refused it. In fact, he even wrote several letters outlining his distaste for slavery.

[AuH20]

BTW I'm pretty shocked that you can purchase a Quantrill Black Raider Flag on Amazon!

http://www.specialforces.com/image/data/A0/A04407-432.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Ruffin-Flag-Company-Quantrill-Polyester/dp/B00DD60VXY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436584184&sr=8-1&keywords=quantrill+flag


This is another style of Missouri Partisan Ranger Flag that was carried by Missouri men who rode under William C. Quantrill. These men rode hard and defended the innocent citizens of Missouri from the slaughter and carnage that had been committed by the Occupational Forces sent by Abraham Lincoln. Although many Northern histories consider the Partisan Ranger to be bushwhackers, they were only waging the type war that had already been committed against them and their families. Occupational troops from Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconin raped, pillaged, burned and destroyed much of Western & West Central Missouri, and the Partisan Rangers were at times the only defense the people of Missouri had.

It's kinda funny that the various big box vendors banned the AoNV (stars n bars) flag but you can still buy this flag. This flag is basically all about killing feds and any forms of authority. ROFL

[oyarde]

Explain to me, then, why the KKK is protesting it coming down.

They still around ?

[oyarde]

BTW I'm pretty shocked that you can purchase a Quantrill Black Raider Flag on Amazon!

http://www.specialforces.com/image/data/A0/A04407-432.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Ruffin-Flag-Company-Quantrill-Polyester/dp/B00DD60VXY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436584184&sr=8-1&keywords=quantrill+flag



It's kinda funny that the various big box vendors banned the AoNV (stars n bars) flag but you can still buy this flag. This flag is basically all about killing feds. ROFL

I use a Black Flag myself .

[Vanguard101]

I don't take this man seriously. He's a paleocon statist. The south was right rhetoric has already been debunked. The north was trash too. Not to mention half the shit he says is completely unwarranted with credible facts.

[FloralScent]

They still around ?

The Feds won't let them die.

[Danke]

They still around ?

Who, the FBI?

[oyarde]

Who, the FBI?

Yeah , those pd with tax monies pd informant guys , thats them .

[Vanguard101]

Megyn Kelly posted the same article. Who wrote it?

[Brian4Liberty]

I use a Black Flag myself .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR0G9XKuHdE

[Weston White]

That was perhaps one the best articles I have ever read. Quickly summed up all that is wrong with present day America. Chuck Baldwin rocks!

[Weston White]

I would certainly not stop, say, California, if it wanted to break away to become a Soviet style gulag.

Hey now watch it! We are hastily working on packing all our soviet-posers to Texas. :toady:

[Weston White]

Explain to me, then, why the KKK is protesting it coming down.

1. KKK is anarchist at its core. Thus they protest most everything government.
2. KKK functions on the obfuscated teachings of history as the rest of America. Thus most truly believe that the so-called Civil War was over slavery.

ETA:

Rather than removing the Confederate Battle Flag from service, the legislature should have opted to pass a resolution addressing the myriad of valid points within this article, while denouncing racism and slavery within the state of SC.

[Weston White]

FTFY:


New Black Panthers vs. White Supremacists. What could possibly go wrong? :D

[Brett85]

Megyn Kelly posted the same article. Who wrote it?

Lol, I saw that, and I'm pretty sure that website has nothing at all to do with Megyn Kelly. Chuck Baldwin wrote the article.

[LibForestPaul]

Yeah, the slippery slope effect is real. You were right about your predictions of what would happen. If you give the left an inch, they'll take a mile.

you know what the southerners will do. nothing. too busy waving that bastard flag that murdered their ancestors while decrying about all those mooslim terrorists

[Southron]

you know what the southerners will do. nothing. too busy waving that bastard flag that murdered their ancestors while decrying about all those mooslim terrorists

Being invaded, defeated, subjected, and reconstructed will do that to you.

[Brett85]

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side"… Ulysses S. Grant

[Brett85]

I've changed my mind on this issue, at least for now. Unless someone can refute what Chuck Baldwin wrote in this article.

[AuH20]

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side"… Ulysses S. Grant

That's pretty damning.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I've changed my mind on this issue, at least for now. Unless someone can refute what Chuck Baldwin wrote in this article.

The Union may not have invaded the South to end slavery, but slavery was the driving force behind the secession of the Southern States. Jefferson Davis had given speeches before the war in which he advocated secession if an abolitionist was elected President (and Lincoln was wrongfully regarded as a radical abolitionist by Southerners). Both sides were horrible and we shouldn't celebrate either (even though individuals like Lee were great men). A somewhat similar analogy I like to use is that we shouldn't celebrate Saddam Hussein while we criticize the Bush doctrine. Likewise we shouldn't celebrate the Confederacy while we criticize Lincoln.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Explain to me, then, why the KKK is protesting it coming down.

The FBI has controlled the KKK since Hoover's time.

[Brett85]

The Union may not have invaded the South to end slavery, but slavery was the driving force behind the secession of the Southern States. Jefferson Davis had given speeches before the war in which he advocated secession if an abolitionist was elected President (and Lincoln was wrongfully regarded as a radical abolitionist by Southerners). Both sides were horrible and we shouldn't celebrate either (even though individuals like Lee were great men). A somewhat similar analogy I like to use is that we shouldn't celebrate Saddam Hussein while we criticize the Bush doctrine. Likewise we shouldn't celebrate the Confederacy while we criticize Lincoln.

True, that's a good point. Do you take the position that the Civil War shouldn't have been fought?

[AuH20]

The Union may not have invaded the South to end slavery, but slavery was the driving force behind the secession of the Southern States. Jefferson Davis had given speeches before the war in which he advocated secession if an abolitionist was elected President (and Lincoln was wrongfully regarded as a radical abolitionist by Southerners). Both sides were horrible and we shouldn't celebrate either (even though individuals like Lee were great men). A somewhat similar analogy I like to use is that we shouldn't celebrate Saddam Hussein while we criticize the Bush doctrine. Likewise we shouldn't celebrate the Confederacy while we criticize Lincoln.

It boiled down to congressional control. If an abolitionist POTUS came to power, it would have further skewed the Northeastern control of the Congress, since he would have most likely banned slavery in the new territories. Slaves equaled more seats for southern sympathizing states (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution), especially in the HoR.

[TheCount]

The president determines congressional control?

[AuH20]

The president determines congressional control?

The POTUS was the final firewall on any proposed legislation that managed to navigate through both houses of Congress. Remember that you had the Missouri Compromise which was then reversed years later by the Kansas Nebraska Act. There was a constant tug and pull over the status of the new territories.

[Weston White]

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side"… Ulysses S. Grant

To note, it is asserted, this quote was forged: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D02E2D61E38EF34BC4850DFBE668389669FDE

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1207568-correct-quote

[DFF]

Next up, the Alamo will be shut down, and Davie Crockett's ancestors will give a heartfelt apology for killing Santa Anna's soldiers.

[Brett85]

To note, it is asserted, this quote was forged: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D02E2D61E38EF34BC4850DFBE668389669FDE

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1207568-correct-quote

Thanks for that. I guess it's hard to know for sure what's true and what's not true.

[Weston White]

The Union may not have invaded the South to end slavery, but slavery was the driving force behind the secession of the Southern States. Jefferson Davis had given speeches before the war in which he advocated secession if an abolitionist was elected President (and Lincoln was wrongfully regarded as a radical abolitionist by Southerners). Both sides were horrible and we shouldn't celebrate either (even though individuals like Lee were great men). A somewhat similar analogy I like to use is that we shouldn't celebrate Saddam Hussein while we criticize the Bush doctrine. Likewise we shouldn't celebrate the Confederacy while we criticize Lincoln.

Really, maintaining state sovereignty (i.e., state's rights) was the underlying motivating factor, which included the institution of slavery. (Mr. Davis performed his speeches in Mississippi in 1858, though SC was the first to secede, around two-years later.)

[Occam's Banana]

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side"… Ulysses S. Grant

Just FYI: Grant himself was a slave owner. Technically, he personally owned only one slave himself (and he was manumitted by Grant in 1959). But Grant was the supervisor and effective "owner" of all the slaves his wife Julia had from her family. The Grants did not free their slaves until the latest possible day, when slavery was "officially" abolished in Missouri after the war.

[surf]

To note, it is asserted, this quote was forged: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D02E2D61E38EF34BC4850DFBE668389669FDE

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1207568-correct-quote

Grant never said “If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side”. This was started by Horace Greeley in (1868 and 1872) during his run for President against Ulysses Grant and defended and proven by E. B. Washburne Representative from Illinois.

"This quote was supposedly made to the Chicago Tribune in 1862 by Grant. Problem is that nobody has ever been able to find this quote, not even the Chicago Tribune and the quote is contrary to everything that Grant has ever stated about the slavery issue. thank you Weston White

[Tywysog Cymru]

True, that's a good point. Do you take the position that the Civil War shouldn't have been fought?

Yes, I would have most likely been a copperhead.


It boiled down to congressional control. If an abolitionist POTUS came to power, it would have further skewed the Northeastern control of the Congress, since he would have most likely banned slavery in the new territories. Slaves equaled more seats for southern sympathizing states (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution), especially in the HoR.

So are you admitting they seceded over slavery?

[AuH20]

So are you admitting they seceded over slavery?

They seceded because they refused to be milked any further by Northern industrialists, who were expanding their profits at the South's expense. Railroads and canals in the Northern part of the country were almost being exclusively funded by Southern importers. Slavery certainly played a role, but it was never the catalyzing factor. The Morrill Tariff sent the South over the proverbial edge as they wished for a permanent divorce from their Northern neighbors.

[William Tell]

Chuck Baldwin is awesome. I wish he would run again.

[Tywysog Cymru]

They seceded because they refused to be milked any further by Northern industrialists, who were expanding their profits at the South's expense. Railroads and canals in the Northern part of the country were almost being exclusively funded by Southern importers. Slavery certainly played a role, but it was never the catalyzing factor. The Morrill Tariff sent the South over the proverbial edge as they wished for a permanent divorce from their Northern neighbors.

I guess I must be missing something, because when I read primary sources relating to secession from the union I see a lot more references to slavery than tariffs.


Chuck Baldwin is awesome. I wish he would run again.

I actually do to, even though I strongly disagree with him on this issue. I agree with him on almost everything else.

[AuH20]

I guess I must be missing something, because when I read primary sources relating to secession from the union I see a lot more references to slavery than tariffs.



Only 4 of 11 states stated so in their declarations of secession (South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas).

[Brett85]

They seceded because they refused to be milked any further by Northern industrialists, who were expanding their profits at the South's expense. Railroads and canals in the Northern part of the country were almost being exclusively funded by Southern importers. Slavery certainly played a role, but it was never the catalyzing factor. The Morrill Tariff sent the South over the proverbial edge as they wished for a permanent divorce from their Northern neighbors.

I came across this article on Facebook. How do you respond to this?

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/secession/?referrer=https://www.facebook.com/

[FloralScent]

I guess I must be missing something, because when I read primary sources relating to secession from the union I see a lot more references to slavery than tariffs.



...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


Stop it with the same old tired shit. You obviously have an agenda that has nothing to do with historical truth. I didn't even have to post these quotes. The Emancipation Proclamation and the South's reaction to it debunks your entire argument on its own.

[AuH20]

Author Thomas Fleming Summed It Up In One Big Bow. The first point you will recognize since we are living under the same bondage the Southerners were subject to. It's the same cast of characters........


Fleming contends that the real reason for the war – and for why, of all the nations on earth, only the U.S. associated war with the ending of slavery – was twofold: First, there was the extreme “malevolent envy” of Southerners by the New England “Yankee” political class, who had long believed that they were God’s chosen people and that they should rule America, if not the rest of the world. Second, there were a mere 25 or so very influential New England abolitionists who had abandoned Christianity and even condemned Jesus Christ, while embracing the mentally insane mass murderer John Brown as their “savior.” This is part of the “disease in the public mind” that is the theme of Fleming’s book.

Now who does that sound like?

http://i.imgur.com/YBBdsgu.jpg

https://www.opposingviews.com/sites/default/files/featured_image/piece/15/01/wall_st_2_featured.jpg

[FloralScent]

...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?

Actually, this quote is quite worrisome, as it implies are far more sinister reason for secession than I had previously considered. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, but I know for damn sure it wasn't about slavery.

[AuH20]

It's pretty baffling that the North subjugated the South and destroyed it's sovereignty, yet years later those fighting men of largely Scottish descent went to willingly fight in many imperial wars of the Northern establishment's choosing. A large portion of the U.S. Armed Forces to this day is plucked from former Confederate states.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Only 4 of 11 states stated so in their declarations of secession (South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas).

Not all states have official declarations of secession available. Virginia also indirectly states that they were seceding over slavery.


Actually, this quote is quite worrisome, as it implies are far more sinister reason for secession than I had previously considered. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, but I know for damn sure it wasn't about slavery.

You basically quoted Jackson predicting that the southern states would secede over slavery.


Author Thomas Fleming Summed It Up In One Big Bow. The first point you will recognize since we are living under the same bondage the Southerners were subject to. It's the same cast of characters........

The real bondage of that southerners were subjected to was that of plantation owners against their slaves. Today we're dealing with real bondage to the federal government.

Oh, and by the way, southerners wrote the tariff of 1857.


It's pretty baffling that the North subjugated the South and destroyed it's sovereignty, yet years later those fighting men of largely Scottish descent went to willingly fight in many imperial wars of the Northern establishment's choosing. A large portion of the U.S. Armed Forces to this day is plucked from former Confederate states.

Before the Civil War the southern slave states were also the ones pushing for war with Mexico and annexation of Cuba.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Stop it with the same old tired shit. You obviously have an agenda that has nothing to do with historical truth.

No, you have an agenda, I did research and made observations. I read the declarations of secession and saw that they say that they are seceding over slavery. I also observed that no free state seceded and every slave state that remained in the union had a strong pro-Confederate faction except Delaware. What other conclusion could I come to than that the southern states seceded mostly over slavery?


I didn't even have to post these quotes. The Emancipation Proclamation and the South's reaction to it debunks your entire argument on its own.

The Southern politicians and planters didn't form the CSA because they thought that the day Lincoln took office slavery would be abolished, they did it because they knew that the Northern free states were gaining in power and influence and eventually they would outnumber them in power and slavery's days were coming rapidly to an end unless they left the nation that's government was dominated by anti-slavery politicians.

[jmdrake]

He makes some compelling points in that article. I still disagree with the neo-confederates. There was good and bad in the Confederacy. How about the Confederacy's central bank? I'm sure no one here would support that.

Not to mention the Confederacy beat Lincoln to instituting a draft. (Slavery of white people). And how about the fact that the confederate constitution expressly denied states the right to end slavery?

http://civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm
SECTION II.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No slave or Person held to Service or Labour in [one State] any State or Territory of the Confederate Slates under the Laws thereof, escaping or unlawfully carried into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Oh...but we'll just ignore what the confederates said in their own constitution because it doesn't fit our current libertarian mindset.

[Southron]

Is secession legal or even morally permissible?

[jmdrake]

They seceded because they refused to be milked any further by Northern industrialists, who were expanding their profits at the South's expense. Railroads and canals in the Northern part of the country were almost being exclusively funded by Southern importers. Slavery certainly played a role, but it was never the catalyzing factor. The Morrill Tariff sent the South over the proverbial edge as they wished for a permanent divorce from their Northern neighbors.

The Morrill Tariff only passed after the southern states seceded and wouldn't have passed if they hadn't seceded. Prior to that a tariff favoring the south had been passed.

[Anti Federalist]

Is secession legal or even morally permissible?

Show me in the constitution where it states a state cannot leave the union.

[paleocon1]

The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered

Published: Thursday, July 9, 2015

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3336/The-Confederate-Flag-Needs-To-Be-Raised-Not-Lowered.aspx

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 America’s 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 Madison’s 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 didn’t 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 Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s 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 Lincoln’s 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 nation’s 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. Lincoln’s 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: Lincoln’s 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 isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.



Lincoln’s 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 don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?



It’s 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 Lincoln’s 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 Maxwell’s 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?



That’s 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 didn’t 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 America’s 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. That’s 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 didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s 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 Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:



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 Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.



Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.


Baldwin is right.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm beginning to rethink my position on this. I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with Chuck's view of history entirely, but it certainly seems to be far more complex than how our history books today treat the subject, that the south was fighting only to preserve slavery and the north was fighting to abolish it.

I read some of the documents. The south was afraid that Lincoln was going to take their slaves. I don't believe that was true though.

I don't agree with Chuck's view of history, and I'm for taking every flag down (not just every Confederate flag, ANY flag, ESPECIALLY in churches.) Chuck is still great, however.

[Christian Liberty]

The Union may not have invaded the South to end slavery, but slavery was the driving force behind the secession of the Southern States. Jefferson Davis had given speeches before the war in which he advocated secession if an abolitionist was elected President (and Lincoln was wrongfully regarded as a radical abolitionist by Southerners). Both sides were horrible and we shouldn't celebrate either (even though individuals like Lee were great men). A somewhat similar analogy I like to use is that we shouldn't celebrate Saddam Hussein while we criticize the Bush doctrine. Likewise we shouldn't celebrate the Confederacy while we criticize Lincoln.

This is more or less how I see it. The South was fighting for slavery and the North was not fighting against it.

I'm opposed to the invasion.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

It's a shame that even people on this forum fall into the "good guy/bad guy" trap when it comes to interpreting the Civil War. Both the Confederacy and Union instituted drafts that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians from both sides who had nothing to gain by either government's involvement in the war.

Sure, the southern governments that seceded from the Union may have balked at the tariffs created by the northern states, but that still does not excuse the fact that the Confederacy did nothing to abolish slavery on its own accord, something that was far more sinister and tyrannical than taxes.

In regards to this flag "controversy", I leave you with this:

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-don-t-get-all-choked-up-about-yellow-ribbons-and-american-flags-i-consider-them-to-george-carlin-80-89-06.jpg

[Acala]

Different people had different reasons for supporting or being part of the Civil War. It is not possible to say accurately that "the Civil War was about X". And the Confederate flag today, as a symbol, has a different meaning for different people. If it stood for secession alone, I would be flying it. But for most people it is not that simple and for many millions, it is tainted with racism. That taint will never be eliminated. I won't be fighting that losing battle. It's just a piece of cloth.

[heavenlyboy34]

Is secession legal or even morally permissible?

Legal=/=moral. If it weren't moral, there wouldn't be a U.S.A. (It would be colonies of England in the New World) Whatcha think? Was US secession moral or no? England had a far better case against US secession that the US had against CSA secession.

[Acala]

Is secession legal or even morally permissible?

Is government by consent of the governed the only legitimate form of government as stated in the Declaration of Independence? If so, peaceful secession is THE fundamental political right without which there is ONLY tyranny. There can be no moral government WITHOUT the right of secession.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I read some of the documents. The south was afraid that Lincoln was going to take their slaves. I don't believe that was true though.

I don't agree with Chuck's view of history, and I'm for taking every flag down (not just every Confederate flag, ANY flag, ESPECIALLY in churches.) Chuck is still great, however.

I saw "cultural Christianity" manifested in one of the most blunt ways possible when I drove by a building that displayed the Christian Flag, The American Flag, and the Confederate Flag. I don't personally know who put up the flags but conveyed an idea that Christianity is just part of being an American and a Southerner. "If they had an Israeli Flag there too the collection would be complete" I thought.


This is more or less how I see it. The South was fighting for slavery and the North was not fighting against it.

I'm opposed to the invasion.

The most tragic part (besides the massive casualties) is that secession is now tainted by slavery. If the South had not seceded and slavery had ended peacefully, secession would not have been discredited. States could threaten secession over federal overreaches and that could keep the federal government from being as large as it is today.

Notice that advocating secession is more tolerated in other countries. When I lived in Wales I knew people who wanted to secede from the United Kingdom. Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) advocates Welsh independence and has elected several members of Parliament*. In Scotland, almost 45% of voters voted to secede. In 1995 Quebec narrowly voted against leaving Canada. However, I'd be shocked to see more than 10% of voters to chose secession in any state besides Texas or maybe Alaska.

*It's a horrible party though, it's very left-wing and wants an independent Wales to join the EU and UN. Secession is sadly a socialist cause in many parts of the world.

[Acala]

The most tragic part (besides the massive casualties) is that secession is now tainted by slavery. If the South had not seceded and slavery had ended peacefully, secession would not have been discredited. States could threaten secession over federal overreaches and that could keep the federal government from being as large as it is today.



This^

[SovereignMN]

However, I'd be shocked to see more than 10% of voters to chose secession in any state besides Texas or maybe Alaska.


You might be surprised...
http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The most tragic part (besides the massive casualties) is that secession is now tainted by slavery. If the South had not seceded and slavery had ended peacefully, secession would not have been discredited. States could threaten secession over federal overreaches and that could keep the federal government from being as large as it is today.
The whole point of secession is the federal government was trying to trump states rights.

"If you want to be part of this union, you must end slavery."
"I guess we're leaving the union, then."
"Not so fast, bitch, prepare for war."

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I saw "cultural Christianity" manifested in one of the most blunt ways possible when I drove by a building that displayed the Christian Flag, The American Flag, and the Confederate Flag. I don't personally know who put up the flags but conveyed an idea that Christianity is just part of being an American and a Southerner. "If they had an Israeli Flag there too the collection would be complete" I thought.



The most tragic part (besides the massive casualties) is that secession is now tainted by slavery. If the South had not seceded and slavery had ended peacefully, secession would not have been discredited. States could threaten secession over federal overreaches and that could keep the federal government from being as large as it is today.

Notice that advocating secession is more tolerated in other countries. When I lived in Wales I knew people who wanted to secede from the United Kingdom. Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) advocates Welsh independence and has elected several members of Parliament*. In Scotland, almost 45% of voters voted to secede. In 1995 Quebec narrowly voted against leaving Canada. However, I'd be shocked to see more than 10% of voters to chose secession in any state besides Texas or maybe Alaska.

*It's a horrible party though, it's very left-wing and wants an independent Wales to join the EU and UN. Secession is sadly a socialist cause in many parts of the world.

THIS should be the general libertarian consensus on the Civil War, in effect, retiring the immoral and contradictory "states' rights" argument.

[TheCount]

The whole point of secession is the federal government was trying to trump states rights.

"If you want to be part of this union, you must end slavery."
"I guess we're leaving the union, then."
"Not so fast, bitch, prepare for war."

Don't you mean:

"I guess we're leaving the union, then, and oh by the way attacking your forts right now."

[Weston White]

Here is a nice admission on Justia:


The Fourteenth Amendment and States' Rights

Amendment of the Constitution during the post-Civil War Reconstruction period resulted in a fundamental shift in the relationship between the Federal Government and the States. The Civil War had been fought over issues of States' rights, including the right to control the institution of slavery. In the wake of the war, the Congress submitted, and the States ratified, the Thirteenth Amendment (making slavery illegal), the Fourteenth Amendment (defining and granting broad rights of national citizenship), and the Fifteenth Amendment (forbidding racial discrimination in elections). The Fourteenth Amendment was the most controversial and far-reaching of the three "Reconstruction Amendments."

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/02-fourteenth-amendment-and-states-rights.html

[Weston White]

Don't you mean:

"I guess we're leaving the union, then, and oh by the way attacking your forts right now."

Don't you mean the Battle of Fort Sumter, which was on SC land and which SC had previously been demanding be abandoned by Army troops, but which the Army had refused?

[Acala]

Don't you mean the Battle of Fort Sumter, which was on SC land and which SC had previously been demanding be abandoned by Army troops, but which the Army had refused?

And don't forget that the Union insisted that it would still collect tariffs on shipping into the South by force. A clear act of war.

[KingNothing]

I'm beginning to rethink my position on this. I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with Chuck's view of history entirely, but it certainly seems to be far more complex than how our history books today treat the subject, that the south was fighting only to preserve slavery and the north was fighting to abolish it.

The south was, unequivocally, fighting to preserve slavery. They were fighting for other things too, but to whitewash their desire to own slaves is preposterous.

Fuck the confederate flag. Lower it. Burn it. Who cares about it? Flags are mere symbols, and symbols are for children. They don't matter. Politically this is a losing issue. Why expend capital on it? We stand to gain nothing if we win, and if we lose, we paint ourselves into a corner standing next to racists and morons. This isn't a hill worth dying on.

[KingNothing]

Is secession legal or even morally permissible?

It is moral, who cares if it is legal? It is not, however, moral to secede and then to form a government that establishes a constitutional right to own slaves. On its face, that is insane.

[tod evans]

///

[tod evans]

More than 20 students at Virginia high school suspended for wearing Confederate flag on clothing

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/18/20-students-at-virginia-high-school-suspended-for-wearing-clothing-displaying/?intcmp=hpbt2

More than 20 western Virginia high school students were suspended Thursday after holding a rally to protest a new policy banning vehicles with Confederate flag symbols from the school parking lot and refusing to take off clothing displaying the symbol.

Christiansburg High School Senior Houston Miller, who organized the rally, said he doesn't believe the administration should be able to tell students what they can wear or put on their vehicle. He said he doesn't intend to back down and is encouraging more students to show their support for the flag Friday.

"I feel like I should have the right to wear whatever I want, and I'm standing up for this," Miller said.

The dress code at the school in Christiansburg — south of Blacksburg along Interstate 81 — prohibits students from wearing articles that reflect adversely on people because of race, gender, or other factors. A new policy this fall bans students from having Confederate symbols on their vehicles in the parking lot.

Confederate symbols have come under increased public scrutiny since the June 17 massacre of nine black worshippers at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. Dylann Roof, the white man charged in the slayings, had been photographed holding the Confederate battle flag.

The 21 students who refused to remove their Confederate flag clothing were initially given in-school suspensions, said Brenda Drake, a spokeswoman for Montgomery County Public Schools. But 15 of them were sent home for the day after being loud and disruptive. Another two students were suspended for additional days.

Drake said the school values the students' First Amendment rights but has to maintain a safe and orderly environment. She said "incidents of racial tension" at the school have made the ban necessary but did not specify what the incidents were and didn't immediately respond to further requests for comment.

Of the school's 1,100 students, 83 percent are white and 8 percent are black, state data show.

"We are not issuing a judgment on the flag, but know that not allowing it at CHS supports a peaceful educational environment in the building," Drake said in a statement. "Continued racial friction suggests that lifting the ban of this particular symbol would cause significant disruption at the school."

Senior Morgan Willis attended the rally but decided to comply with the rules because she feared a suspension would prevent her from representing the school at an event this weekend. She had a Confederate flag draped across the top of her car until she was told on the first day of class to remove it, she said.

Willis said that for her and for other students, the flag is central to their Southern heritage.

"I understand some people take it as hate, but none of us out there were racist or anything," Willis said. "I don't see it as hate. If I did, I wouldn't own it. I see it as this is your Southern heritage, and if you can't have that, then what can you have?"

The new policy regarding Confederate flags on cars has also angered some parents, including Josh Akers, whose child attends the grade school in the school district. He started an online petition that has more than 1,200 supporters urging the school board to reverse the policy.

Richmond-based Attorney Jonathan Arthur said he has been talking to some of the students about potentially filing a lawsuit against the school, arguing that they have a Constitutionally-protected right to wear clothing emblazoned the flag.

Douglas Mertz, an attorney in Juneau, Alaska, who works on civil rights cases, said the courts have been divided over the issue. It often comes down to whether the school can point to concrete and specific problems that the symbol has caused, like a fight that broke out between students.

"The Supreme Court has said that you don't speculate that there might be a substantial impact on the education process. It has got to be really clear," Mertz said. "School officials can't simply go in with the belief that symbols are trouble and therefore can be banned," he said.