Rand Paul: Confederate flag is “inescapably a symbol of human bondage and slavery”

[kahless]

I'm not talking about the Confederate military, but the politicians. I actually think that Lee and Jackson were great people. The Confederate politicians were the ones who wanted to preserve slavery.

So did Lincoln for a time. The Corwin Amendment which he supported would have made institutionalized slavery impervious to the constitutional amendment procedures and immune to abolition or interference by Congress. It passed Congress and was sent to the state legislatures.

Take a look at the Corwin Amendment and Lincolns first inaugural address and tell me whether you still think the war was fought over slavery.

Corwin Amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment, noting that Buchanan had approved it.

The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861 and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.[1] Senator William H. Seward of New York introduced the amendment in the Senate and Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced it in the House of Representatives. It was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and to entice border slave states to stay.[2] Technically still pending before the states, it would, if ratified, shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress.[

Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment, noting that Buchanan had approved it.

The Corwin Amendment was the second proposed "Thirteenth Amendment" submitted to the states by Congress. The first was the similarly ill-fated Titles of Nobility Amendment in 1810.

Attempted withdrawal of the Corwin Amendment

On February 8, 1864, during the 38th Congress, with the prospects for a Union victory improving, Republican Senator Henry B. Anthony of Rhode Island introduced Senate (Joint) Resolution No. 25[20] to withdraw the Corwin Amendment from further consideration by the state legislatures and to halt the ratification process. That same day, Anthony's joint resolution was referred to the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary. On May 11, 1864, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, received the Senate's permission to discharge Senate (Joint) Resolution No. 25 from the Committee, with no further action having been taken on Anthony's joint resolution.[21]

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address
Monday, March 4, 1861
....
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.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes....
....

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

Full text here: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

[nayjevin]

Yep, you got it. Busing destroyed both black and lower to middle class white communities by government fiat, and further aggravated existing hostilities.

Therefore it's okay?

[Aratus]

Apple removed all Civil War games that included the confederate flag from their app store. The General Lee is being revamped on Dukes of Hazards items. Farrakhan took the flag issue to the logical extreme and suggested that the American flag be shunned as well.

The pendulum is swinging much too hard in this direction, already, and rational folks are starting to see how preposterous the SJWs and Progressives really are as they press for censorship and erasing actual history.

The nuanced view wins here -- Rand wins here. Governments should no longer embrace the flag. Popular sentiment has turned against it. As we are seeing now, those who originally pushed for governments to retire the flag are overreaching, and popular sentiment will soon turn against them. I saw we get out of the way and give them all the space they need to look insane.

there are extremes concerning the censorship of the Confederate Flag & the fervor some have taken to it who do not have ancestors
who fought under it or any of the standards carried by units of the Southern armies. it has been 150 years since the ending of our great
civil war and we are still healing as a nation. i heartily respect doctor rand paul for his nuanced view & sensibilities, as he helps us heal.

[Aratus]

A true Fascist who'd be the tyrant who would end our Republic clearly would view Auld Glory and Dixie's flag as tidy & trim stage props,
each "narrow~cast" in a very political manner, each as a means to an end and not an ultimate goal. a demagogue plays with symbols,
they steal ideas when it suits them. the great national tragedy of 150 years ago actually has no pull on this would be tyrant or anti-christ.

[hells_unicorn]

Therefore it's okay?

What's okay? Forcing integration to the detriment of all parties? Absolutely not okay, which was my point. Existing hostilities? Also not okay, but you don't fix a wound by pouring battery acid on it, which was also my point.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Cited earlier and I found the "original" source at wikipedia...

I call "BULL$#@!"!! There's no source referenced at wikipedia (usually a no-no). The figure itself makes no mathematical sense. How can 42% of "households" have slaves?? You had to be pretty wealthy to have a slave. They were expensive and your "average" joe sure couldn't afford to have one. Are we to believe that 42% of "households" in New York city were wealthy? Pretty hard to believe and for those reasons I don't believe it (not to mention there's no quoted source for this other than an unreferenced quote at wiki).

People always fall for "statistics" even when they are simply make up from whole cloth...

I didn't forget anything. You asked, "How do you reconcile those two 'statistics'? How can the greatest number of slaves be only 20% of the population and yet 43% of 'households' had slaves???" (You did not present this question with any qualifications concerning "rich people.")

I showed how easily those particular numbers could be reconciled. My point - my only point - was that the "greatest number of slaves" could have been "only 20% of the the population" while "43% of 'households' had slaves" - which is what you asked about. I have no idea whether the given numbers are accurate or completely bogus. (Nor do I have any idea how many "rich people" there were or how much it cost to own slaves.) I merely pointed out that the given numbers are not at all irreconcilable.

Yes you did reconcile those two numbers but as shown above my original post and point were that 42% of the households would have to be classified as "wealthy" and that the real numbers of wealthy people is way below that. I'm also trying to get people to THINK about what they are reading whether it's in a history book, science book or news source. After 63 years on this globe I've learned one thing for sure... MOST of what you read is BS. I don't even have to "research" the statistics to determine this (although it helps to have the hard numbers if they even exist). Think about what you are reading and then compare that to your own real world experiences and try to imagine how what the writer is telling you can exist. We all know that most people are not wealthy. We may not have "actual numbers" in our brains but we can make a good estimate by looking around us. The "weakest" part of my argument is that I'm claiming that there's no way that 42% of households were wealthy enough to own slaves. That is the "attack" that needs to be made to contradict me. Is it possible that any community has that large number of wealthy people? (other than small local "gated" type communities)

[65fastback2+2]

It is unfortunate, that even today, the purpose of the states' secession and the civil war is buried so deep, even those I consider smart and educated can so easily miss it.

[Carlybee]

It is unfortunate, that even today, the purpose of the states' secession and the civil war is buried so deep, even those I consider smart and educated can so easily miss it.

Just wait. This is the tip of the iceberg. Soon there will be no states rights and if you support states rights you will be deemed a traitor.
If they can effectively ban a symbol, speech and thought are next. That's what some don't get. Ultimately it's not about the slavery of the past, but the slavery of the future.

[ChristianAnarchist]

It is unfortunate, that even today, the purpose of the states' secession and the civil war is buried so deep, even those I consider smart and educated can so easily miss it.

It's called "Social Conditioning" and it's effect is constant throughout history. I wrote about it here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-USA-and-China

We need to recognize it and call it out when we see it. It's an invisible hazard to liberty that doesn't even have to have an "author". Sometimes this conditioning just "happens" without any author or reason. I cited a few examples in the thread comparing China to USA and some of the goofy things we seem to accept even though they make NO sense...

[nayjevin]

Just wait. This is the tip of the iceberg. Soon there will be no states rights and if you support states rights you will be deemed a traitor.
If they can effectively ban a symbol, speech and thought are next. That's what some don't get. Ultimately it's not about the slavery of the past, but the slavery of the future.

But they can't effectively ban a symbol.

And there are plenty of big voices speaking out against the absurdity of trying among leftist blacks.

[hells_unicorn]

I think my initial words on this topic may have gotten lost in the heat of the debate so I'm just going to re-emphasize my view on this topic. I am not in favor of slavery or Jim Crowe, my specific gripe here is historical abuses in the name of "Unity" that have bearing on the current debate, and also my opposition to several key outcomes of the Civil Rights movement. I'm not taking either the Union or Confederate side on principle, but in terms of comparative damage to this country and all living in it, I'd argue that the North/Union is the more guilty party (they profited the most from the initial slave trade and got almost zero of the blame), and the only people who came out of the Civil War period completely clean were the contingent of Abolishionists who avoided fanaticism and actually supported the South's secession on the grounds that it would have eventually caused the end of slavery through pressure from Europe, ergo opposing both slavery and mass murder.

I consider Lincoln a tyrant on par with Josef Stalin, and the people who ran the Union Army under him, particularly Sherman and Sheridan, and the so-called industrialists that bankrolled them were even worse. The Confederates could be described as being morally conflicted, or even right for the wrong reasons, but comparatively speaking, I view them as the lesser evil.

[Carlybee]

But they can't effectively ban a symbol.

And there are plenty of big voices speaking out against the absurdity of trying among leftist blacks.

They have effectively done just that and they are scrubbing history so they can rewrite a more politically correct version where there is only one side's account of events.

[AuH20]

They have effectively done just that and they are scrubbing history so they can rewrite a more politically correct version where there is only one side's account of events.

[givemeliberty2010]

So did Lincoln for a time. The Corwin Amendment which he supported would have made institutionalized slavery impervious to the constitutional amendment procedures and immune to abolition or interference by Congress. It passed Congress and was sent to the state legislatures.

Take a look at the Corwin Amendment and Lincolns first inaugural address and tell me whether you still think the war was fought over slavery.

Corwin Amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

The Corwin Amendment is about slavery in the slave-holding states, but those state were, at that time, mostly concerned about the Republicans' plans to obstruct slavery in the territories. So, yes, the war was fought over slavery in the territories, which the Corwin amendment did not address.

[kahless]

The Corwin Amendment is about slavery in the slave-holding states, but those state were, at that time, mostly concerned about the Republicans' plans to obstruct slavery in the territories. So, yes, the war was fought over slavery in the territories, which the Corwin amendment did not address.

I do not see why the states would care what goes on in the territories. This was a major concession from Buchanan and Lincoln to go as far to make slavery impervious to abolition. The states just wanted to secede despite whatever efforts Buchanan and Lincoln were making to stop them.

[AuH20]

I do not see why the states would care what goes on in the territories. This was a major concession from Buchanan and Lincoln to go as far to make slavery impervious to abolition. The states just wanted to secede despite whatever efforts Buchanan and Lincoln were making to stop them.

3/5ths rule = More congressional reps.

[Smitty]

The good news is, Rand gained 14 votes from the African American community.

The bad news is, he lost a few hundred thousand from the mainstream republican community.

[Wilf]

The good news is, Rand gained 14 votes from the African American community.

The bad news is, he lost a few hundred thousand from the mainstream republican community.

Then who do they support Cruz...?

[Smitty]

Then who do they support Cruz...?

Walker

[Wilf]

Walker

He was against the confederation flag before it became an issuse

[AuH20]

Then who do they support Cruz...?

Trump...................He doesn't care what the media says.

[Wilf]

Trump...................He doesn't care what the media says.

Untill it matter to his business

[Occam's Banana]

I do not see why the states would care what goes on in the territories.

The expansion of slavery into the westward territories was a major bone of contention between the north & south, going at least as far back as 1815 and the Missouri Compromise. (The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 only exacerbated the problem.)

The reason for this contention is not at all difficult to understand - the admission of any new state would mean the addition to the US Congress of two senators and some some number of house reps (and recall that slaves, although they could not vote, counted for 3/5ths of a person for purposes of determing representation in the US House) . Obviously, this would very strongly affect the balance of power between southern agrarian (pro-slavery) interests and northern industrial (mercantilist) interests. (The mercantilist Republicans did not oppose slavery so much because they regarded slavery with abhorrence, but because they feared a significant strengthening of their political rivals' power base.)

[Smitty]

Rand slapped an enormous conservative demographic in the face in order to appear socially correct,..and any gain he gets from it will be extremely minimal.

Rand doesn't know when to shut up.

[AuH20]

Rand slapped an enormous conservative demographic in the face in order to appear socially correct,..and any gain he gets from it will be extremely minimal.

Rand doesn't know when to shut up.

The fact that he went full out SJW as opposed to a measured approach like McDaniel is disappointing.

[Wilf]

The fact that he went full out SJW as opposed to a measured approach like McDaniel is disappointing.

True, but does not means that he lost the enormous conservative demographic and still has some time to gain them back

[Smitty]

how?

[Southron]

True, but does not means that he lost the enormous conservative demographic and still has some time to gain them back

It's hard to say how many votes he gained or lost but I do know one thing, he's wasting his time sending me emails for donations while trashing the Battle Flag.

[Wilf]

how?

Simple, Rand can get those votes back since:
1)The first primary occurs on February 1st, 2016 in Iowa ... not now

2) It is not the most important issuse amoung the conservative voters or consevative voters may forget about this comment

It is just a temporary setback

[AuH20]

It's hard to say how many votes he gained or lost but I do know one thing, he's wasting his time sending me emails for donations while trashing the Battle Flag.

I don't know what his plan is, but my excitement level for his campaign is nil. Our country is being ravaged by globalists on all fronts and Rand is playing footsies. Completely unacceptable. When your house is on fire, you don't dance around with a fire extinguisher and delicately disperse a sparse amount like a perfume bottle.