Mitt Romney: Take Down the Confederate Flag Immediately

[Tywysog Cymru]

Many in the North fought for the South. Just as many in the South fought for the North. If one tries to paint this war in black and white, good vs. evil, this vs. that then one misses much of the multi-hued panorama that was the Civil War.

They did. At the least, they rallied behind the anti-war cause (if not the "Southern" cause). Or they tried to ...

They were called Copperheads. They were systematically hounded, persecuted, jailed, etc. by the Lincoln regime and Northern "patriots."

One of them - Clement Vallandigham - was a congressman from Ohio who was forcibly "exiled" from the Union because of his vehement opposition to the war.

I would have probably been a Copperhead if I had lived back then. However, opposing the war did not make them pro-Confederate. Just like opposing the Iraq War didn't make one pro-Hussein.

What I'm saying is that if the Civil War wasn't about slavery it would have been a national rebellion. Instead, it was confined to the states that had slavery. And it was started because an abolitionist was elected President.

Here is a link to a speech by Jefferson Davis from before the war about slavery and secession.

[phill4paul]

I would have probably been a Copperhead if I had lived back then. However, opposing the war did not make them pro-Confederate. Just like opposing the Iraq War didn't make one pro-Hussein.

What I'm saying is that if the Civil War wasn't about slavery it would have been a national rebellion. Instead, it was confined to the states that had slavery. And it was started because an abolitionist was elected President.

Here is a link to a speech by Jefferson Davis from before the war about slavery and secession.

Certainly, for many, opposing the war absolutely did not mean they were pro-Confederate. Had it not been for forced conscription, on both sides, I doubt much would have come about because of declared war.

[William Tell]

Certainly, for many, opposing the war absolutely did not mean they were pro-Confederate. Had it not been for forced conscription, on both sides, I doubt much would have come about because of declared war.

I believe conscription did not take place until 1862.

[phill4paul]

I believe conscription did not take place until 1862.

The Union Enrollment Act took place March 3, 1863. The Confederacy passed one of it's first conscription acts a year earlier on April 16th. People were tiring of the war. The average man considered it "a rich man's battle, but a poor man's fight." They weren't re-enlisting and something had to be done by both sides.

[Inkblots]

If I were a citizen of South Carolina, I'd ask my representatives to vote for the bill to stop flying the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia over the Statehouse grounds.

But I'm not a citizen of South Carolina, so my views on the matter frankly don't matter all that much.

[Occam's Banana]

What I'm saying is that if the Civil War wasn't about slavery it would have been a national rebellion. Instead, it was confined to the states that had slavery.

These statements do not make any sense. The Civil War was certainly a national conflict.
Two parts of the nation warred against one another. It does not get any more "national" than that ...

The South sought political separation - and there is no question that secession was motivated by (among other things) a desire to preserve the institution of slavery, which they regarded as being in jeopardy should they remain in political union with the North. But their reasons for secession were NOT the reason for the war. Those were entirely separate things.

The North sought to forcibly maintain political union. That is why the war was fought. It was NOT fought by the North in order to end slavery (the South's desire to preserve slavery notwithstanding). Had the North been willing to permit secession (or unable to prevent it), no war would have been fought.

And it was started because an abolitionist was elected President.

Lincoln was not an abolitionist.

In his first inaugural, as a sop to the South, he offered his support for the so-called "Corwin amendment" (what would have become the 13th amendment, had it passed), which would have forbidden the federal government from abolishing slavery. That's a pretty damn strange thing for an "abolitionist" to do ... (and the only way around this is to say that Lincoln was merely opposed to abolition at the federal level - i.e., that he was a "states' rights" guy - a claim that would be even more bizarre than that he was an abolitionist ...)

Furthermore, it is instructive to note that in the very same inaugural address in which he stated his willingness to support the Constitutional preservation of slavery in perpetuo, he also made it clear that he would not hesitate to use military force against any state that did not comply with the recently-passed (and in the South, much-hated) Morrill Tariff ...

[Southron]

Let's be honest. Demands to take down the Battle Flag have more than to do with smashing any remaining vestiges of defiance that still exist in the South than any perceived offenses.

The people who venerate the flag are much less likely to be your typical Romney voter than Reconstructed Southerners or transplant Yankees.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Let's be honest. Demands to take down the Battle Flag have more than to do with smashing any remaining vestiges of defiance that still exist in the South than any perceived offenses.

The people who venerate the flag are much less likely to be your typical Romney voter than Reconstructed Southerners or transplant Yankees.

You're right, they're you're typical Newt Gingrich voter. McCain won SC in 2008 by the way. The deep South also overwhelmingly rejected Ron Paul.

These statements do not make any sense. The Civil War was certainly a national conflict.
Two parts of the nation warred against one another. It does not get any more "national" than that ...

The South sought political separation - and there is no question that secession was motivated by (among other things) a desire to preserve the institution of slavery, which they regarded as being in jeopardy should they remain in political union with the North. But their reasons for secession were NOT the reason for the war. Those were entirely separate things.

The North sought to forcibly maintain political union. That is why the war was fought. It was NOT fought by the North in order to end slavery (the South's desire to preserve slavery notwithstanding). Had the North been willing to permit secession (or unable to prevent it), no war would have been fought.

I wasn't defending the North, I'm just saying that slavery was the reason for secession and that is well documented.

Lincoln was not an abolitionist.

In his first inaugural, as a sop to the South, he offered his support for the so-called "Corwin amendment" (what would have become the 13th amendment, had it passed), which would have forbidden the federal government from abolishing slavery. That's a pretty damn strange thing for an "abolitionist" to do ... (and the only way around this is to say that Lincoln was merely opposed to abolition at the federal level - i.e., that he was a "states' rights" guy - a claim that would be even more bizarre than that he was an abolitionist ...)

Furthermore, it is instructive to note that in the very same inaugural address in which he stated his willingness to support the Constitutional preservation of slavery in perpetuo, he also made it clear that he would not hesitate to use military force against any state that did not comply with the recently-passed (and in the South, much-hated) Morrill Tariff ...

Lincoln was perceived as an abolitionist in the South and the Republican Party was an abolitionist party.

[William Tell]

You're right, they're you're typical Newt Gingrich voter. McCain won SC in 2008 by the way. The deep South also overwhelmingly rejected Ron Paul.

Total nonsense. All the people I know who are serious about defending the Confederacy are Ron Paul supporters or Constitutionalists.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Total nonsense. All the people I know who are serious about defending the Confederacy are Ron Paul supporters or Constitutionalists.

Really? In South Carolina I rarely see Ron Paul supporters. In Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio, they are quite common.

[William Tell]

Really? In South Carolina I rarely see Ron Paul supporters. In Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio, they are quite common.

Yes really, in Texas anyway. All the people I know who are involved in historical Confederate groups supported Ron Paul, as far as I know.

I am not involved in any of those groups, but I know a lot of people who are.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Yes really, in Texas anyway. Everyone I know who is involved in Sons of Confederate veterans, all the people I know who are involved in historical Confederate groups supported Ron Paul, as far as I know.

I guess it's a Texan thing. Because most people I've met who defend the Confederacy also defend the legacy of George W. Bush.

[Occam's Banana]

I wasn't defending the North,

Nor am I defending the South - except insofar as I am defending the right of secession.

Otherwise, to hell with them. They were human-chattel slavers. 'Nuff said.

I'm just saying that slavery was the reason for secession and that is well documented.

Agreed 100%. I'm just saying that their "reasons for secession" and the "reasons for the war" are disjoint sets - or at least, their intersection does not include slavery.

Lincoln was perceived as an abolitionist in the South

Of course he was. A nice bit of useful propaganda, that - an easy way to rally & rile up the base (rather like interventionists conveniently "perceiving" Ron Paul as an "isolationist" ...)

But regardless of how he was perceived in the South, Lincoln was not, in fact, an abolitionist.

and the Republican Party was an abolitionist party.

The extent of their abolitionism appears to have been mostly restricted to a desire to prevent slavery from expanding into the western territories - a desire that largely seems to have been motivated not by any particular moral abhorrence of slavery, but rather to an eminently "practical" wish to prevent the bloc of slave states from gaining any more representation (and, hence, power) in the national legislature.

As a party, they were certainly not principled abolitionists (like William Lloyd Garrison). It is worth noting that the aforementioned "Corwin amendment" (which would have enshrined slavery in perpetuo, as far as the federal government was concerned) was conceived, authored and proposed by Thomas Corwin - a Republican congressman from Ohio - and was, as mentioned, supported by newly-elected president Abraham Lincoln, who was also a Republican ...

[CaptUSA]

To be honest, I didn't read all of the posts, but did anyone mention the establishment using this "controversy" as a means to misdirect the conversation?

They do this every so often and it always seems to work. Racial division is a powerful tool in their arsenal.

[Southron]

Look what the media have created. Now people are vandalising Confederate statues.

http://www.abcnews4.com/story/293713....VYcxRkcNzsA.t

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Brett85]

Total nonsense. All the people I know who are serious about defending the Confederacy are Ron Paul supporters or Constitutionalists.

That's disappointing, because they're giving Ron Paul and the liberty movement a bad name.

[Origanalist]

That's disappointing, because they're giving Ron Paul and the liberty movement a bad name.

Aww, poor thing.

[donnay]

FWIW, I still like the Gadsden flag too.

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...20.EE5uCkaeKWk

I fly mine proudly!

----------------------------------

Mitt is typical establishment trash trying to help start a race war. You ever notice that the biggest racists are the biggest hypocrites?

[Brett85]

Aww, poor thing.

How some of you support the Confederacy is beyond me. Slavery and the Confederacy is the antithesis to liberty. You also don't have to be a supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the north to realize how awful the Confederacy was.

[Brett85]

If he respected states rights, he as a political figure from another state wouldn't voice an opinion as he is not a SC resident.

Being in favor of states' rights doesn't mean that you can't voice your opinion about laws in other states. That's just an absurd interpretation of states' rights. States' rights simply means that you oppose federal laws that overturn laws passed by state legislatures or the people in the various states.

[William Tell]

That's disappointing, because they're giving Ron Paul and the liberty movement a bad name.

Cry us a river.

[Carlybee]

How some of you support the Confederacy is beyond me. Slavery and the Confederacy is the antithesis to liberty. You also don't have to be a supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the north to realize how awful the Confederacy was.

The Confederacy no longer exists. The Confederate flag exists as a rememberance of the thousands who died in the war. I don't see anyone here supporting slavery so where do you get that and how can someone support something that no longer exists?

[Aratus]

"Take down the #ConfederateFlag at the SC Capitol. To many, it is a symbol of racial
hatred. Remove it now to honor #Charleston victims." MITT ROMNEY in 2015 on Twitter

All during 2o12 he had me guessing about his stances on the many issues of the day, and now that
he's not running for the presidency he's starting to speak his mind??? This being said before i EVEN
wade into the basic question over where and how a Confederate flag ought to be flown and why!!!!

[Brett85]

Anyone that believes that the North, in it's entirety, rose up to "free the slaves from bondage" or that the South, in it's entirety, rose up to "keep the slaves shackled" has had their blinders of public re-education and media manipulation on so long that is just easier for them to ignore the facts that are on either side of the road.

It's not true that the Civil War was entirely about slavery, and that the north was fighting to free the slaves and the south was fighting to preserve slavery. Obviously it's far more complex than that. But neither is it true that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery as some claim. The truth is more nuanced and is somewhere in between. The north didn't use slavery as a reason for fighting the Civil War until near the very end of the war, and it's not likely that the north in the beginning wanted to fight the war in order to end slavery. At the same time, the south did indeed secede from the union mostly to preserve slavery, as they stated in their written documents detailing why they wanted to secede.

[donnay]

The Confederacy no longer exists. The Confederate flag exists as a rememberance of the thousands who died in the war. I don't see anyone here supporting slavery so where do you get that and how can someone support something that no longer exists?

So while some in this forum are arguing that the confederate flag is about slavery...this is the new slavery flag--for us all.




"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."

[Brett85]

Cry us a river.

That wasn't very smart either IMO. That's why we can't expand the base of the liberty movement beyond white men.

[Brett85]

The Confederacy no longer exists. The Confederate flag exists as a rememberance of the thousands who died in the war. I don't see anyone here supporting slavery so where do you get that and how can someone support something that no longer exists?

They seemed to at least be arguing that the Confederacy was on the right side of the Civil War, and I just don't agree. I do agree that the north and Abraham Lincoln weren't the heroic anti slavery crusaders that history books make them out to be, but that doesn't mean that the Confederacy was any better or any more pro liberty than the north.

[TheCount]

Total nonsense. All the people I know who are serious about defending the Confederacy are Ron Paul supporters or Constitutionalists.

Welp, not in SC.

[Brett85]

Welp, not in SC.

Yeah, people on this forum are defending the views of people who are most likely the same people who booed Ron in the SC GOP debate for saying that our government should follow the golden rule in foreign policy.