The ‘Southern Avenger’ Repents: I Was Wrong About the Confederate Flag

[Acala]

But the question is whether or not you can force someone else to take the flag down if they choose to fly it, wear it, tattoo it personally..

I believe people have the right to express what they want, and offended people should say what they want but forcibly taking down someone's symbolic expressions would be a severe violation of first amendment rights.

I don't think anyone is seriously talking about a law against the symbol. They are talking about the State government flying it on public property. Big difference.

[phill4paul]

I don't think anyone is seriously talking about a law against the symbol. They are talking about the State government flying it on public property. Big difference.

Just for general information...

The flag was removed from the dome of the S.C. State House in 2000. It was placed upon the State House grounds at a Civil-War memorial site. In 2001 an African American memorial site was added to these same grounds.

[Acala]

Just for general information...

The flag was removed from the dome of the S.C. State House in 2000. It was placed upon the State House grounds at a Civil-War memorial site. In 2001 an African American memorial site was added to these same grounds.

Yup. I had an office in Columbia in the late 90's and could see the flag on the dome (then under renovation) from my window. The memorial to the Civil War dead on the grounds features a beautiful poem on a large plaque. The poem is heartbreaking. I can't find it online at the moment . . .

[fisharmor]

Three felonies a day.

Not my point.

Slavery was never abolished in its entirety in the US. Slavery is still 100% legal in this country under certain circumstances.

I disagree with large swaths of the constitution. But the actual idea which actually is encapsulated in the actual 13th amendment, as written, is a good idea.
That idea is that slavery should be perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances.

[Southron]

Can you blame him?? He's trying to save his career.

He had a good following until he repudiated everything he was.

Now he is just another libertarian in a sea of libertarian commentators and columnists.

[Ender]

Well, as we are discussing on the other thread, slavery would have probably ended in the south soon anyway. The Civil War wasn't about slavery, and a much greater longterm tyranny was inflicted on the entire country due to the results of the Civil War. Many people see it as a symbol of freedom from central authority and nothing to do with slavery, so you don't have to be a neo-confederate and support slavery.

Exactly.

The Civil War was never a "civil war"- it was a War Between the States that was over money; the old taxation w/o representation stuff. the South was being regulated to death to support the North and they wanted out. Slavery was ending all over the world and was due to come to an end in America.

[AuH20]

Exactly.

The Civil War was never a "civil war"- it was a War Between the States that was over money; the old taxation w/o representation stuff. the South was being regulated to death to support the North and they wanted out. Slavery was ending all over the world and was due to come to an end in America.

The Northern industrialists wanted to finance their infrastructure improvements on the back of the South, who were extremely vulnerable to the high tariff rates. That's basically what occurred. Not too dissimilar to what we are encountering today with the various trade agreements and SCOTUSCare.

[fisharmor]

Exactly.

The Civil War was never a "civil war"- it was a War Between the States that was over money; the old taxation w/o representation stuff. the South was being regulated to death to support the North and they wanted out. Slavery was ending all over the world and was due to come to an end in America.

Detractors like to point out that negro slavery was explicitly protected in the Confederate constitution. However the wording of article 4 section 3, taken as a whole, is clearly nothing more than a reiteration of the Dred Scott decision, enshrined in their constitution.
But the telling thing is that the Article V convention of the CSA constitution calls for a convention to convene at the request of three states.
Not two-thirds of anything - three states. That's it.
All it would have taken to change that part of their constitution is rabblerousing from three states.

Confederate slavery might have lasted into the 1890s if they were left alone. Maybe it would have lasted into the 20th century. But life would have improved for negro slaves throughout that time as industrialization took the south. One has to consider that they weren't just slaves, they were assets, and their owners would have treated them as assets.

So we have to ask hard and honest questions as to whether or not earlier freedom and continually crappy living conditions for the next century was a good tradeoff for the alternate scenario, which would have had another 50 years potentially of people who are technically slaves but who would have to have been educated to keep up with industry, who would eventually would have been freed without so much ill will toward them lingering on to this very day.

That's the part I'm surprised nobody ever mentions about the war between the states. Was it begun over slavery? Everyone believes that regardless of its falsehood. But select few seem to recognize the historical fact that the war left a scar on the United States which, given the fact that we're even talking about this, has not healed.

I submit that letting the secessionists figure out their own course would have left slavery where it is today, later, sure, but without that scar.

[AuH20]

Detractors like to point out that negro slavery was explicitly protected in the Confederate constitution. However the wording of article 4 section 3, taken as a whole, is clearly nothing more than a reiteration of the Dred Scott decision, enshrined in their constitution.
But the telling thing is that the Article V convention of the CSA constitution calls for a convention to convene at the request of three states.
Not two-thirds of anything - three states. That's it.
All it would have taken to change that part of their constitution is rabblerousing from three states.

Confederate slavery might have lasted into the 1890s if they were left alone. Maybe it would have lasted into the 20th century. But life would have improved for negro slaves throughout that time as industrialization took the south. One has to consider that they weren't just slaves, they were assets, and their owners would have treated them as assets.

So we have to ask hard and honest questions as to whether or not earlier freedom and continually crappy living conditions for the next century was a good tradeoff for the alternate scenario, which would have had another 50 years potentially of people who are technically slaves but who would have to have been educated to keep up with industry, who would eventually would have been freed without so much ill will toward them lingering on to this very day.

That's the part I'm surprised nobody ever mentions about the war between the states. Was it begun over slavery? Everyone believes that regardless of its falsehood. But select few seem to recognize the historical fact that the war left a scar on the United States which, given the fact that we're even talking about this, has not healed.

I submit that letting the secessionists figure out their own course would have left slavery where it is today, later, sure, but without that scar.

You really wonder what the country would look like without Reconstruction. That was the moment the bad guys got their foot in the door and haven't looked back since.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

talk more about flags and less about TPP plz our shadowy overlords are really good at this distraction thing

[Acala]

Exactly.

The Civil War was never a "civil war"- it was a War Between the States that was over money; the old taxation w/o representation stuff. the South was being regulated to death to support the North and they wanted out. Slavery was ending all over the world and was due to come to an end in America.

As with most things in life, it's more complicated than the soundbites and historical summaries. There is no single answer to the question "what was the Civil War about?"

If you asked the individual soldiers who fought, you would have had a thousand different answers. Some fought over the issue of slavery, but not very many on either side. Some fought over issues of political rights, tariffs and the Constitution. But not very many. Some fought to preserve the Union. But not very many. I would hazard to guess that, as in most wars, the soldiers who did the fighting did so out of some combination of pride, fear of being labeled a coward, lust for glory, money, adventure, hatred of the other side, comfort of joining a team doing something big, forced conscription, and so on. The men who were doing the shooting and doing the dying were no more doing it over the issue of taxation than they were over the issue of slavery.

But there were other people with other interests that pushed the war. Northern industrialists and Southern farmers were in conflict about slavery and tariffs - the evidence of this is in the Confederate Constitution.

And politicians were, as usual, manipulating, pandering, and seeking power without regard to principles.

So nobody can really say "The Civil War was about X." But you CAN say that it was not all about slavery. No rational historian would argue that point.

[AuH20]

Lincoln was for secession before he was against it................ It's amazing what a little prodding by some wealthy friends can do.

In a speech in 1848 on the Mexican War, Abraham Lincoln said, "...Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and belive, is to liberate the world..."

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Lincoln was for secession before he was against it................ It's amazing what a little prodding by some wealthy friends can do.

In a speech in 1848 on the Mexican War, Abraham Lincoln said, "...Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and belive, is to liberate the world..."

this only applies when it's part of America's interest. Just like how Crimea 90%+ voting to secede to Russia is somehow Putin invading Ukraine.

[phill4paul]

As with most things in life, it's more complicated than the soundbites and historical summaries. There is no single answer to the question "what was the Civil War about?"

If you asked the individual soldiers who fought, you would have had a thousand different answers. Some fought over the issue of slavery, but not very many on either side. Some fought over issues of political rights, tariffs and the Constitution. But not very many. Some fought to preserve the Union. But not very many. I would hazard to guess that, as in most wars, the soldiers who did the fighting did so out of some combination of pride, fear of being labeled a coward, lust for glory, money, adventure, hatred of the other side, comfort of joining a team doing something big, forced conscription, and so on. The men who were doing the shooting and doing the dying were no more doing it over the issue of taxation than they were over the issue of slavery.

But there were other people with other interests that pushed the war. Northern industrialists and Southern farmers were in conflict about slavery and tariffs - the evidence of this is in the Confederate Constitution.

And politicians were, as usual, manipulating, pandering, and seeking power without regard to principles.

So nobody can really say "The Civil War was about X." But you CAN say that it was not all about slavery. No rational historian would argue that point.

Yep, “rich man’s war and poor man’s fight."

[devil21]

Can you blame him?? He's trying to save his career. But he should know better. The Confederate flag is based on the Scottish National flag which is based on the Saint Andrews' cross. St Andrew was crucified on a large X because he felt he wasn't worthy to be crucified on the same type of cross as Jesus. Today St Andrew is the Patron Saint of Russia and Scotland.

Hmm, interesting points. Two countries that have historically been thorns in the side of the ruling elite...

[dannno]

Well said, and shame on Rand's recent comments. I wouldn't blame any southerner for blowing Rand off in the ballot booth. And I live in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I disagree with Rand's statement but I think he made the politically expedient move - hopefully people will get over it and he won't lose too many votes. It's not like he is encouraging the Federal Govt. to limit speech or anything.

[PaleoPaul]

If people won't vote for Rand over a damn flag, then they deserve an establishment Republican nominee, and come 2017, an establishment Republican or Hitlary as President.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Good for Jack. I agree. A libertarian stands against slavery in every regsard.

Jack Hunter is not a libertarian.

[LibForestPaul]

Sounds like preparing for next stage...race war. Gotta keep the peons fighting amongst themselves.

[William R]

He was the Southern Avenger though, this was his career. Sure, he can do whatever he wants. But this is like Babe Ruth saying Baseball sucks, and people who like Baseball are morons.

Jack used to be a fire breathing paleoconservative, now he's a whimpering political Shih Tzu.

Well he got a taste of big politics by being on Rand Paul's staff and decided he liked it I suspect. That said he's now changed his webzine RARE and in order to post you have to have a Facebook account. I used to be a semi regular poster there, but since I don't have an account with Facebook I guess those days are over. I suspect he didn't want a bunch of anonymous people raking him over the coals for his 180 on the Confederate flag.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Jack Hunter also has been standing up for minorities lately. I'm so glad that he's come around on this issue as well!

[wizardwatson]

Jack Hunter also has been standing up for minorities lately. I'm so glad that he's come around on this issue as well!

Obviously, THIS thread needs my little creation more than any other.

[TaftFan]

Anyone been following him and his page (Rare Liberty) on Facebook? Talk about beating a dead horse.

[TaftFan]

Looks like Tom Woods is getting annoyed:

One of the worst things to me is the spectacle of people who conveniently "change their minds" when the heat is on, and then look down their noses at those who hold the same views they themselves held 10 minutes earlier. Then they win praise and huzzahs. Well, you can stick your media praise you know where, because you'll never see me crawling to beg for it.
At some point you have to decide to be a man, and quit pandering and apologizing. (This is not a reference to Rand Paul, in case you thought it was.)

[wizardwatson]

Looks like Tom Woods is getting annoyed:

One of the worst things to me is the spectacle of people who conveniently "change their minds" when the heat is on, and then look down their noses at those who hold the same views they themselves held 10 minutes earlier. Then they win praise and huzzahs. Well, you can stick your media praise you know where, because you'll never see me crawling to beg for it.
At some point you have to decide to be a man, and quit pandering and apologizing. (This is not a reference to Rand Paul, in case you thought it was.)

Haha. Are the parentheses your addition or Tom's? It's a shame they're necessary.

[TaftFan]

Haha. Are the parentheses your addition or Tom's? It's a shame they're necessary.

His.

[Chieppa1]

Anyone been following him and his page (Rare Liberty) on Facebook? Talk about beating a dead horse.

He spends a good amount a time telling his followers what to think. Like to remember to insult and dismiss "conspiracy theorists".

[kahless]

One of the worst things to me is the spectacle of people who conveniently "change their minds" when the heat is on, and then look down their noses at those who hold the same views they themselves held 10 minutes earlier. Then they win praise and huzzahs. Well, you can stick your media praise you know where, because you'll never see me crawling to beg for it.
At some point you have to decide to be a man, and quit pandering and apologizing. (This is not a reference to Rand Paul, in case you thought it was.)

Too bad there are not more people like Tom in the media. This is so typical, cuckold cowards.

[Acala]

A wise general picks their battlefields. A foolish general allows thier enemies to do so. A wise General also yields territory when it will put them in a better position to win the war.

[AuH20]

A wise general picks their battlefields. A foolish general allows thier enemies to do so. A wise General also yields territory when it will put them in a better position to win the war.

They are coming over the ramparts and people are doing nothing. That's all I see.