# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand Paul: Confederate flag is inescapably a symbol of human bondage and slavery

## RonPaul4Prez2012

***** He's getting tons of negative reactions for this on FB. Talk about milquetoast. 



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

Bonnie Kristian, Rare Contributor
Posted on June 23, 2015 8:36 am


During a radio interview this morning, Senator Rand Paul offered his take on the Confederate battle flag, which many have said should be taken down from South Carolina government properties in the wake of the racist murders of nine black churchgoers in Charleston.
Here’s what Paul said:

No, I agree, I think the flag is inescapably a symbol of human bondage and slavery, and particularly when people use it obviously for murder and to justify hated so vicious that you would kill somebody I think that that symbolism needs to end, and I think South Carolina is doing the right thing.
Obviously it’s a decision for South Carolina to make, but if I were in South Carolina, that’s what I would vote to do, and that’s what I would recommend to anybody who asked for my opinion. There have been people who have used it for southern pride and heritage and all of that but really to I think to every African American in the country it’s a symbolism of slavery to them and now it’s a symbol of murder for this young man and so I think it’s time to put it in a museum.

Other Republican candidates, particularly Lindsey Graham and Mike Huckabee, have taken much more dubious positions. View a list of their statements—which has not yet been updated to include Paul’s remarks—here.

FB Post:

https://www.facebook.com/Rand2016?fref=ts


http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-confe...e-and-slavery/

----------


## JK/SEA

when in Rome do as the Romans do, then after you have them in your palm, crush them.

----------


## kahless

I think there should be a new flag that solely symbolizes states rights and peace amongst races with an effort to make it go viral.  Then those bitching about the Confederate flag would not be able to use race as an issue in the dialog over states rights.

----------


## jbauer

What I don't understand is why out of this whole "pissed off citizenry" in Charleston that not one person just drove up to the capital building and took the darn thing down.  Is it behind some type of barricade?  You're telling me the janitor or yard person couldn't have stole it?

To me this is more about getting the publics attention OFF of some of the crappy things happening like the TPP, Patriot act etc etc etc.  Getting people to focus on stupid stuff keeps them occupied while the feds fleece us all.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

The flag is only a symbol of slavery to the ignorant, who are unaware of the true causes and meaning of the war. 

That said, I would be extremely annoyed with Rand if he publicly agreed with me.

...no faster way to sink a campaign (since most voters _are_ ignorant about the war and _do_ wrongly see it as a symbol of slavery).

So, I'm fine with this.

----------


## Lightweis

Completely agree. The confederate flag was born out of a confederacy that advocated slavery. It is a racist flag and it has no business ever flying on a government building.
Hats off to Mitt Romney and Rand Paul  on speaking out on this issue.

----------


## 65fastback2+2

> I think there be a new flag that solely symbolizes states rights and peace amongst races with an effort to make it go viral.  Then those bitching about the Confederate flag would not be able to use race as an issue in the dialog over states rights.


maybe this one?

----------


## 65fastback2+2

> The flag is only a symbol of slavery to the ignorant, who are unaware of the true causes and meaning of the war. 
> 
> That said, I would be extremely annoyed with Rand if he publicly agreed with me.
> 
> ...no faster way to sink a campaign (since most voters _are_ ignorant about the war and _do_ wrongly see it as a symbol of slavery).
> 
> So, I'm fine with this.


I would have preferred no comment on it and let it go.

----------


## angelatc

That's pretty much a universal flag thing.

----------


## AuH20

Rand told Rush he was going to run a namby pamby campaign. So this falls within those parameters.

----------


## 65fastback2+2

interestingly enough, Georgia and Mississippi arent being drug through this: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/22/8826957...ia-mississippi

Which brings about the truth...its not about the flag at all, its about dumb morons wanting to point fingers.

----------


## kahless

> maybe this one?


Obviously one that cannot in any way resemble the Confederate flag or have any historical significance.  People have to stop using the past and make a case for states rights in the now. It is the only way to beat the house at their own game.

----------


## RonPaul4Prez2012



----------


## LibertyEagle

Wise men choose their battles.  Together with his past comments about the Civil Rights Act, if he would have taken the opposite stance on this flag, just imagine the soundbytes that would be spouted all over the airways.

He did the wise thing.

----------


## AuH20

> Wise men choose their battles.  Together with his past comments about the Civil Rights Act, if he would have taken the opposite stance on this flag, just imagine the soundbytes that would be spouted all over the airways.
> 
> He did the wise thing.


Neoconfederate!

----------


## angelatc

> Wise men choose their battles.  Together with his past comments about the Civil Rights Act, if he would have taken the opposite stance on this flag, just imagine the soundbytes that would be spouted all over the airways.
> 
> He did the wise thing.


Exactly.  Principles won't get you elected.  Pragmatic will.

----------


## RonPaul4Prez2012

> He did the wise thing.


Well not if you read the comments on Facebook. I think he should of stayed out of this one.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I would have preferred no comment on it and let it go.


Yea, but with all the press this issue is getting, somebody would have eventually asked him about it.

Better to just hold your nose, make your offering at the PC altar, and be done with it.

----------


## nayjevin

The confederate flag as a symbol is a terrible communication device.  It sends a confusing message.  Who wants to go around explaining to black people the real reason they have a confederate flag on their wallet?  I never understood that.

----------


## nayjevin

> Well not if you read the comments on Facebook. I think he should of stayed out of this one.


Whatever real-life controversy exists in peoples' minds about Rand will be exaggerated by those who wish to create controversy.  Facebook is one of the easier places to stir controversy without accountability.

----------


## jct74

Our good friend in liberty from the state of South Carolina agrees.




> *Tom Davis*
> Yesterday at 11:10am
> 
> The Charleston murders have brought a festering issue back to the surface, and it simply can’t be ignored. Regardless of who’s right from a historical standpoint, it is indisputable that the Confederate battle flag now flying on the State House grounds has been misappropriated by hate groups as a symbol of their hatred, and while I respect the views of those who proudly view this flag as a symbol of their heritage, we must find another way to honor that heritage. This isn’t about re-opening an old wound; it’s about mending one that never properly healed.


https://www.facebook.com/TomDavisSC/...03089433122724

----------


## Vanguard101

I see we still have Confederate sympathizers on RPF. The Confederacy was about slavery. Get over it.

----------


## jj-

weak.

is there any Republican candidate with balls who didn't trash the confederate flag?

----------


## libertyplz

> Yea, but with all the press this issue is getting, somebody would have eventually asked him about it.
> 
> Better to just hold your nose, make your offering at the PC altar, and be done with it.


Yea, Rand was already taking some heat on twitter over saying nothing, not that it was really a big deal I don't think. Whether Rand commented or not, it will all be forgotten by next week. By next weeks news cycle the media will be fixated on something else.

----------


## kahless

> Wise men choose their battles.  Together with his past comments about the Civil Rights Act, if he would have taken the opposite stance on this flag, just imagine the soundbytes that would be spouted all over the airways.
> 
> He did the wise thing.


I agree and do not think he had much of a choice.  Regardless they will probably try to sink him at some point in the race over CRA anyway. At least they will have less ammunition now.

----------


## libertyplz

Edit: Double post, ignore this

----------


## nayjevin

> weak.
> 
> is there any Republican candidate with balls who didn't trash the confederate flag?


You have to be seriously biased to interpret this that way.

Tom Davis and Rand Paul aren't going PC - they are stating the true, correct position on the matter.  Don't defend symbols that cause confusion.  Seek clarity and unity.

----------


## Crashland

A symbol doesn't mean only what YOU say it means. Anyone with a sense of decency will choose not to display something that is commonly taken to be a symbol of slavery, even if they don't mean it that way. What matters when you communicate aren't the words you say, but how they are understood. So if you are trying to make a statement by displaying the confederate flag, please use your brain first for two seconds.

----------


## jj-

> Our good friend in liberty from the state of South Carolina agrees.


Not my friend anymore.

----------


## nayjevin

> The Charleston murders have brought a festering issue back to the surface, and it simply can’t be ignored. Regardless of who’s right from a historical standpoint, it is indisputable that the Confederate battle flag now flying on the State House grounds has been misappropriated by hate groups as a symbol of their hatred, and while I respect the views of those who proudly view this flag as a symbol of their heritage, we must find another way to honor that heritage. This isn’t about re-opening an old wound; it’s about mending one that never properly healed. -- Tom Davis


That's excellent.

----------


## phill4paul

The Battle flag of the Confederacy is said to represent the oppression of some 500,000 Africans. What does Rand, or Mitt or anyone have to say about the flag responsible for the genocide of 100,000,000 Native Americans.  Nothing. That's what. Who will fight for the feelings of Native Americans? No one. That's who.

----------


## kahless

> A symbol doesn't mean only what YOU say it means. Anyone with a sense of decency will choose not to display something that is commonly taken to be a symbol of slavery, even if they don't mean it that way. What matters when you communicate aren't the words you say, but how they are understood. So if you are trying to make a statement by displaying the confederate flag, please use your brain first for two seconds.


Easier for us to see that up here in NY but likely many upset about it are living in their own bubble in the south that have no conception that Rand is trying to run a national campaign.

----------


## euphemia

It's also a symbol of what happens when the Constitution works. The power belongs to the people and the states to be part of the country or not.

----------


## AuH20

Rand has been emasculated during this presidential run. I'm not entirely surprised considering how aggressive the media organs can be. 

Now regarding the flag, you do have the freedom to offend in this country, if it is an eye of the beholder issue. All I know is that the lives of a half million individuals were extinguished thanks to the legendary arrogance of one Abraham Lincoln. So it's not like we're talking about a meager cost.

----------


## SovereignMN

Disappointing to say the least.  He is not his father.

----------


## jj-

It doesn't make sense to remove the confederate flag without removing the United States flag.

----------


## Carlybee

Getting rid of a flag isn't going to mend anything. Even if the perceived symbolism sucks, forcing it down is an abridgment of free expression.  I think the message taking it down sends is worse than the message people perceive the flag to represent. Not to mention it should be up to the people of SC...you know the taxpayers?

----------


## 65fastback2+2

> You have to be seriously biased to interpret this that way.
> 
> Tom Davis and Rand Paul aren't going PC - they are stating the true, correct position on the matter.  Don't defend symbols that cause confusion.  Seek clarity and unity.


Wrong.

The correct stance is done allow morons to twist and pervert a symbol to cause confusion.

I.E.

Rainbow.

Gays have tried to take this and make it mean a whole slew of things.


It still simply means God's promise to not flood the earth again.

----------


## 65fastback2+2

> The Battle flag of the Confederacy is said to represent the oppression of some 500,000 Africans. What does Rand, or Mitt or anyone have to say about the flag responsible for the genocide of 100,000,000 Native Americans.  Nothing. That's what. Who will fight for the feelings of Native Americans? No one. That's who.


Because NA (of which I am one) arent a huge pile of entitled brats.

----------


## jj-

There has been a pattern on this. It's part of bullying the redskins to change their name, etc.

----------


## EBounding

So a state government may no longer display a piece of cloth that's offensive to a lot of people.  Sounds like a good distraction for the media, but I don't see how this suffocates anyone's rights.

----------


## jj-

Next: Thomas Jefferson memorial

----------


## juleswin

> Wise men choose their battles.  Together with his past comments about the Civil Rights Act, if he would have taken the opposite stance on this flag, just imagine the soundbytes that would be spouted all over the airways.
> 
> He did the wise thing.


Exactly, this is not the issue to take a principled stance with. Supporters of the confederacy can still fly it in their house. As evident by the fact that the killer had the old flag of Sout Africa and Rhodesia which doesn't fly anywhere. Taking it down from the state house wouldn't kill from the minds of the public who care about things like this.

+rep when I get to my home computer.

----------


## AuH20

> Next: Thomas Jefferson memorial


You really wonder how long this pushing can go? At some point, the rubber band breaks and snaps back violently.

----------


## phill4paul

It won't be long until they call to disinter the graves of the Confederate soldiers. How dare they take up sacred American soil! Why, their very presence is an insult to the Northerners that lay beside them that fought for the express purpose of abolishing slavery! Dig them up!

----------


## wizardwatson

Once again to be on the right side of politics Rand chooses to be on the wrong side of truth.  There were other things he could have said or at least qualified that it's a symbol "to some".  But no.  A little lie here, a little lie there.  The Lord doesn't care about your campaign.  Whether you win or lose is up to him anyway.  Good intentions are not an excuse for lying.

But whatevs, clearly as has been shown on this thread and others in the past I am in the minority on this lying to get ahead strategy.

----------


## jj-

> You really wonder how long this pushing can go? At some point, the rubber band breaks and snaps back violently.


To be honest, I think there will be no further resistance, and it will all break down and start over.

----------


## nayjevin

Defending the right to use a symbol that makes most people think you are unintelligent and racist.  Why aren't hindu's defending the nazi symbol?  Just retire it already.

I guess I see now that there is a strong bond people have with the symbol (and I know for the most part that's not a racist thing) that I can't relate with.  More evidence, to me, that one should not allow personal identity to be defined by a symbol, because symbols change.  Same philosophy that leads me to not have tattoos I guess.

I see the reasonable arguments on both sides, and I do think it's a pain and a shame that communication among people isn't better, and so symbols have to be retired.  Tea Party is a good example.  It sucks!  But we just have to adapt.

----------


## nayjevin

> Once again to be on the right side of politics Rand chooses to be on the wrong side of truth.  There were other things he could have said or at least qualified that it's a symbol "to some".  But no.  A little lie here, a little lie there.  The Lord doesn't care about your campaign.  Whether you win or lose is up to him anyway.  Good intentions are not an excuse for lying.
> 
> But whatevs, clearly as has been shown on this thread and others in the past I am in the minority on this lying to get ahead strategy.


You really think Rand lied about this?  Where is the lie?

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> EBay to ban sale of Confederate flag merchandise
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...ad0_story.html
> 
> 
> It is getting this ridiculous that clearly they would  have destroyed Rand otherwise.


Also banned at Sears, though I have never seen confederate merchandise at Sears.

It wouldn't surprise me if buying this stuff will put you on some kind of government "list".  Makes me want to run out and buy a confederate flag.  

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politi...outh-carolina/

*TOTAL BLOWBACK!*

These guys must be really happy right now...

http://www.rebelstore.com/confederateflags.html

*Please allow a few extra days for delivery until we can get caught up - We appreciate your support during this terribly sad time while the intolerant  and the mean spirited uneducated attack our proud southern heritage with a vengeance.*

They sell a damn nice 3'x5' flag for $9.  Sounds very heavy duty and well made.

-t

----------


## luctor-et-emergo



----------


## wizardwatson

> Defending the right to use a symbol that makes most people think you are unintelligent and racist.  Why aren't hindu's defending the nazi symbol?  Just retire it already.
> 
> I guess I see now that there is a strong bond people have with the symbol (and I know for the most part that's not a racist thing) that I can't relate with.  More evidence, to me, that one should not allow personal identity to be defined by a symbol, because symbols change.  Same philosophy that leads me to not have tattoos I guess.
> 
> I see the reasonable arguments on both sides, and I do think it's a pain and a shame that communication among people isn't better, and so symbols have to be retired.  Tea Party is a good example.  It sucks!  But we just have to adapt.


I was married to a Hindu, and they do defend it.  It's marked my doorway and it's present on their temples.  I've had the "Swastika" in my house.  

It's meaning predates Hitler's crapping on it.  And now the Babylonians have succeeded in crapping on the confederate flag calling it what it is not.  Letting this flag fall to this charade isn't bad because this flag is falling but because it raises Stars and Stripes to a height it does not deserve.  It bestows honor on a people that do not deserve it.  

In short, the truth, already mostly hidden, is being replaced by an even uglier lie.  America died, and now they are disposing of the body.  Plain and simple.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Had Paul or any of the GOP contenders said nothing, it could easily be interpreted as having no problem with the flag and its associations.  But saying something against the flag has those in favor of states rights in such in a hissy fit. A no win scenario.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You really think Rand lied about this?  Where is the lie?


If it was a symbol of racism then people wouldn't have kept it on the government property.  What about Mississippi?  

Letting this flag fall because it's "racist" legitimizes this false narrative that white people are racist.


You all have it backwards.  Letting the flag fall doesn't mean "See we're not racist."  It means, "You're right, we are racist."

Dylann wins.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Lol at me listening to a Confederate state tell me the war was about "states rights" when the South felt it was there right to secede over slavery because it was a states rights issue. Ok Confederate


Wasn't it though?

The SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott that slaves were property.

The FedGov was moving to "take" property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

----------


## William Tell

The liberal media controls American politics. They decided to make this an issue, so the Republicans comply like they usually do.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

> Wasn't it though?
> 
> The SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott that slaves were property.
> 
> The FedGov was moving to "take" property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.


Perhaps because, run with me on this, the idea of people being property didn't sit well with them?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> To be honest, I think there will be no further resistance, and it will all break down and start over.


This..._Boobus_ doesn't care about any of this, and will just go along to get along, forever.

----------


## William Tell

> You have to be seriously biased to interpret this that way.
> 
> Tom Davis and Rand Paul aren't going PC - they are stating the true, correct position on the matter.  Don't defend symbols that cause confusion.  Seek clarity and unity.


Fine, how about the confusing U.S flag? They won't touch that because they are politicians, you know it and I know it. And that's fine, I don't expect them to. But I'm not going to get out my pom poms and start cheering over some dumb statements they put out.

If their 'excellent' statements actually help them with some people more than it hurts them with others, then I guess its all good. But the PC game doesn't generally work that way.

----------


## kahless

> Also banned at Sears, though I have never seen confederate merchandise at Sears.
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me if buying this stuff will put you on some kind of government "list".  Makes me want to run out and buy a confederate flag.  
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politi...outh-carolina/
> 
> *TOTAL BLOWBACK!*
> 
> These guys must be really happy right now...
> ...


If not on some list it will be found during any criminal investigation and used as an example of being of racist character.  We have probable cause considering his purchase history.

Blowback came to my mind with all the over hyped racial social engineering propaganda going to far.  I  was thinking in the days prior that some nut would snap because of it and kill minority types or gay-transgender. If I were a conspiracy theorist it almost seems that was the intention since Dylan Roof is the gift that keeps giving for the establishment.

----------


## RonPaul4Prez2012

> Lol at me listening to a Confederate state tell me the war was about "states rights" when the South felt it was there right to secede over slavery because it was a states rights issue. Ok Confederate


I have family members there and I visit all of the time. I just booked a trip to visit at the end of July. You seriously don't know what the hell you are talking about.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Perhaps because, run with me on this, the idea of people being property didn't sit well with them?


You're making the moral case, which is, of course, what abolutionists were making as well.

I'm simply stating the legal case, and what it was based on, which is really very simple:

"Your own court said these slaves are our property. You are now making rules that will limit what I can do with my property and causing me finanacial harm."

How much better everybody would have been if the whole wretched system had never been introduced here in the first place.

Racial animosity, slavery, and its lingering effects have torn this country apart numerous times in the past and it appears that it will continue in the future, no matter what capitulations are agreed to.

----------


## Anti Federalist

And while I have taken issue with some of Rand's "weak sauce" positions in the past, there's not a damn thing he could have done in this situation, where you now have a whirling vortex of doom of media and talking heads all spun up and out of control, but to make the statement he did.

Might as well have been King Canute giving orders to the tide as to try and stand up to a full blown, F5, media frenzy.

----------


## nayjevin

> I was married to a Hindu, and they do defend it.  It's marked my doorway and it's present on their temples.  I've had the "Swastika" in my house.


I see now that Hindu's do defend that symbol, I stand corrected.

But but but...

----------


## fisharmor

> Fine, how about the confusing U.S flag?


If I was anywhere near Charleston, I'd organize a trip to the capitol building, grab a bullhorn, call the media, and start burning US flags.

I would say something like this:

This is the flag that committed genocide on the original inhabitants of this land.
This is the flag that originally condoned and protected slavery.
This is the flag that made war on its neighbors and took their land.
This is the flag that told women they could not vote.
This is the flag that imprisoned millions and ruined millions of lives because those people had the wrong plants in their possession.
This is the flag that confiscated the property of one race living here and threw them into concentration camps.
This is _the only flag in the history of the world to use nuclear weapons in anger._
This is the flag that has invaded the world to stamp out a perceived evil, time and time again, only to bring greater evil.

Whatever evils that other flag committed, those evils were brief, a long time ago, and small in comparison to what has been done by THIS flag.

----------


## nayjevin

> Fine, how about the confusing U.S flag?


I don't see that the level of confusion is anywhere near the level of the confederate flag, so I don't think it's a fair comparison.  But the problem is the same - reduce a philosophy to a symbol, and that symbol can be co-opted.  It's only a full understanding of the subject that renders the learner immune to that problem.




> They won't touch that because they are politicians, you know it and I know it. And that's fine, I don't expect them to. But I'm not going to get out my pom poms and start cheering over some dumb statements they put out.
> 
> If their 'excellent' statements actually help them with some people more than it hurts them with others, then I guess its all good. But the PC game doesn't generally work that way.


Maybe you missed it, I don't think it's a PC game at all.  The confederate flag means racism to practically everyone who doesn't identify personally with it, and some of those who do.

I don't see how it's productive to get mired in a rebellious attempt to defend the symbol, that's a lost battle.  Defend the philosophy that it should represent.

----------


## jj-

We should defend the original meanings of symbols.

We shouldn't stop using the word capitalism because other people make them mean corporatism, etc. Every time they decide to mess up the meaning of a word, we should come up with another? Insanity.

----------


## hells_unicorn

My father's side of the family has a fairly extensive history of Copperhead politics (aka Northern anti-Civil War political thinkers, largely democrats at the time) and I'm generally sympathetic to the south regarding this issue, but this is a matter of inevitability. Rationality and historicity are all but gone from the public narrative, and frankly speaking, this is the case because people don't want to put in the effort to understand the actual history behind the civil war. Not only about how the so-called "union" essentially burned down entire cities in the name of preserving "the union", and racist Abe Lincoln's whole scheme to ship every black person to Liberia, but also how poor immigrants fresh off the boat were used as cannon fodder in order to accomplish it.

The cure to this problem is home-schooling, and until I hear Rand Paul join in with the Fascists trying to force people into government institutions as opposed to having their choice of where their children are schooled, he has my support. Symbols are subservient to interpretation, and interpretation is the servant of education, so the name of the game here is education, not political martyrdom.




> We should defend the original meanings of symbols.
> 
> We shouldn't stop using the word capitalism because other people make them mean corporatism, etc. Every time they decide to mess up the meaning of a word, we should come up with another? Insanity.


We should stop using the word capitalism because it was originally coined by Karl Marx and it carries a misleading perception that economic freedom is only about wealth and not about choice and benevolence. For the life of me, I have no idea why people still cleave to this poisonous word, let alone how it was that so-called liberty supporters ever took it up in the first place.

----------


## nayjevin

> We should defend the original meanings of symbols.
> 
> We shouldn't stop using the word capitalism because other people make them mean corporatism, etc. Every time they decide to mess up the meaning of a word, we should come up with another? Insanity.


No, not every time, and no one is arguing that.  Strawman.

----------


## William Tell

> Maybe you missed it, I don't think it's a PC game at all.


No, you missed it. The media is asking every Republican Politician under the sun what they think of the flag. And as per usual, they feel the need to try to 'prove' to the media that they are not racist. These statements from the candidates are defensive. None of them are going to gain votes over this, but they feel they may lose something by not kissing up to the media.

----------


## AuH20

> No, you missed it. The media is asking every Republican Politician under the sun what they think of the flag. And as per usual, they feel the need to try to 'prove' to the media that they are not racist. These statements from the candidates are defensive. None of them are going to gain votes over this, but they feel they may lose something by not kissing up to the media.


_Sir, do you secretly keep black citizens locked up in your attic?_

I'm waiting for this one.

----------


## jj-

> No, not every time, and no one is arguing that.  Strawman.


Yes, you are. You're arguing hindues shouldn't use the swastika. Your arguments logically apply to things such as capitalism, etc. When 'capitalism' starts triggering people like n***** does, your argument backs the censor. If not, you're being inconsistent. You probably deny this because applying consistently your arguments clearly shows they're insane.

You're asking people to allow themselves to be pushed around. My impression from reading your posts was that maybe you need to take some testosterone, as no point of view personifies not having balls as yours do.

----------


## freshjiva

The Confederate flag should never have developed into the preferred symbol of States rights in the first place. The Gadsden flag predates it by decades, and frankly is far better anyway. Let the Confederate flag die. It wont be missed.

----------


## thoughtomator

My conversation with a friend about this topic late last night:

Him - "What do you think about that whole Confederate flag thing?"
Me - "Sounds like a stupid distraction from real issues."
Him - "OK granted, but what do you think about it flying at full mast when the other flags were lowered to half-mast? Don't you think it should be taken down?"
Me - "So they are going to take down the Confederate flag but leave the US flag?"
Him - (long pause) "You got me there."

----------


## nayjevin

> Yes, you are. You're arguing hindues shouldn't use the swastika. Your arguments logically apply to things such as capitalism, etc. When 'capitalism' starts triggering people like n***** does, your argument backs the censor. If not, you're being inconsistent. You probably deny this because applying consistently your arguments clearly shows they're insane.


If capitalism triggered people like that word does, I would not back censorship, but I would view anyone who still uses that word the same way I view people who use the confederate flag.  They have every right to use it, but they either don't recognize that it hurts their cause, or they don't care.

So you attempt to say I am backing censorship, when I have done no such thing.  You attempt to say that I am arguing 'every time they mess up a word' it should be abandoned, when I did no such thing.  You show the same bad attitude, defensive mindset, inability to comprehend, and tendency to project with this account that you do with your previously banned one.




> You're asking people to allow themselves to be pushed around.


Again putting words in my mouth.  People who don't have a closed mind are not having the same problem with my statements.  I am saying that using the confederate flag does not help the cause of educating people about the confederacy.  People who use it either don't understand that, or don't care.




> My impression from reading your posts was that maybe you need to take some testosterone, as no point of view personifies not having balls as yours do.


Your impressions from reading are consistently inaccurate and untrustworthy.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

The swastika is an ancient Sanskrit symbol meaning "good luck" yet no one defends it's use or tries to take it back like they do with the Confederate flag.  Symbols despite what their defenders would have you belief, do not acquire meaning from the intent of the person using the symbol but rather from the inference of the people who see that symbol.

There is a legal right to freedom of expression question, but that only applies to individuals not to state governments.  But there is the much more important issue of humanity.  We should be condemning this $#@!ty flag.  Want a state's rights flag?  Use the Gasdsen.  It doesn't matter what you say the Confederate flag stands for; the fact that it immediately causes most people to think the bearer is racist gives it a clear meaning.  

Rand is absolutely right to condemn this embarrassing symbol.  Especially since he never suggested the federal government should force them to take it down.

----------


## AuH20

> The swastika is an ancient Sanskrit symbol meaning "good luck" yet no one defends it's use or tries to take it back like they do with the Confederate flag.  Symbols despite what their defenders would have you belief, do not acquire meaning from the intent of the person using the symbol but rather from the inference of the people who see that symbol.
> 
> There is a legal right to freedom of expression question, but that only applies to individuals not to state governments.  But there is the much more important issue of humanity.  We should be condemning this $#@!ty flag.  Want a state's rights flag?  Use the Gasdsen.  It doesn't matter what you say the Confederate flag stands for; the fact that it immediately causes most people to think the bearer is racist gives it a clear meaning.  
> 
> Rand is absolutely right to condemn this embarrassing symbol.  Especially since he never suggested the federal government should force them to take it down.


I don't think you are seeing the big picture. They are coming for all objectionable material in their eyes. Every last unapproved item and symbol.

----------


## nayjevin

When defending a symbol, there is a law of diminishing returns in effect as to success of showing people the 'true' meaning behind the symbol.  At some point, when symbols are lost, it becomes a better proposition to move on.

----------


## nayjevin

Don't get lost in 'they' thinking.

----------


## jj-

> You show the same bad attitude, defensive mindset, inability to comprehend, and tendency to project with this account that you do with your previously banned one.


What? I was never banned here. Since you lost the argument, now you're using your status as moderator to lie about me. Bad practice. Your thinking skills will never improve with this evasive practice.

----------


## devil21

Heck of a distraction operation ongoing.  Well played, TPTB.

I don't agree with Rand much on this topic but at least he's correct that it's a state issue and if SC wants to remove it, that's up to them.  I hate to see manufactured political pressures used to erase (and eventually rewrite, most likely) history though.

----------


## Jamesiv1

I agree with "wise men pick their battles"

Rand wants to be president, and I *want* him to be president.

We've got a *lot* bigger fish to fry. If going PC on this 'flag' issue helps avoid some land mines on the way to the White House, so be it.

Sometimes you got to surrender a few battles in order to win the war.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I agree with "wise men pick their battles"
> 
> Rand wants to be president, and I *want* him to be president.
> 
> We've got a *lot* bigger fish to fry. If going PC on this 'flag' issue helps avoid some land mines on the way to the White House, so be it.
> 
> Sometimes you got to surrender a few battles in order to win the war.


I agree.

----------


## fisharmor

> I hate to see manufactured political pressures used to erase (and eventually rewrite, most likely) history though.


History has already been erased and rewritten: notice that even in this thread we had Vanguard101 parroting the state-sanctioned history.
There is one, and only one, correct interpretation of the events of US history, just like there is one, and only one, correct interpretation of the constitution, race relations, state power, and just about everything else that matters in our lives.

This move to take down the flag is about nothing more than cementing the one and only one interpretation.
The confederate battle flag may represent slavery in the minds of some.  But to those to whom it does not represent slavery, it represents the last time anyone in North America meaningfully resisted the one and only one interpretation of everything.

This move to take down the flag is about driving a nail in the coffin of the idea that there is more than one interpretation.
I feel sorry for those who cannot see this.
I will not forget those who see it and applaud.

----------


## Crashland

> The swastika is an ancient Sanskrit symbol meaning "good luck" yet no one defends it's use or tries to take it back like they do with the Confederate flag.  Symbols despite what their defenders would have you belief, do not acquire meaning from the intent of the person using the symbol but rather from the inference of the people who see that symbol.
> 
> There is a legal right to freedom of expression question, but that only applies to individuals not to state governments.  But there is the much more important issue of humanity.  We should be condemning this $#@!ty flag.  Want a state's rights flag?  Use the Gasdsen.  It doesn't matter what you say the Confederate flag stands for; the fact that it immediately causes most people to think the bearer is racist gives it a clear meaning.  
> 
> Rand is absolutely right to condemn this embarrassing symbol.  Especially since he never suggested the federal government should force them to take it down.


Yes, and there is a difference between using a swastika in other forms as opposed to actually using the Nazi flag. If Hindus use a swastika symbol in some other form it's obvious from the context that they aren't using it to endorse Nazi Germany. If a German were to fly a Nazi flag above their house, that is a different story, and they should be shamed for doing it. Very few Germans would be caught dead doing that even if the flag gives them warm fuzzy feelings inside about their heritage, because they know what it means to other people and they wouldn't embarrass themselves the way some Americans do.

----------


## jj-

> If a German were to fly a Nazi flag above their house, that is a different story, and they should be shamed for doing it. Very few Germans would be caught dead doing that even if the flag gives them warm fuzzy feelings inside about their heritage, because they know what it means to other people and they wouldn't embarrass themselves the way some Americans do.


How is the U.S. flag any less embarrassing than the confederate flag?

----------


## fisharmor

> How is the U.S. flag any less embarrassing than the confederate flag?


It's perfectly ok that the US invades other countries and forces them to have the government the US wants.
I mean, this was settled in 1861-65 when the US invaded another country and forced them to have the government the US wanted.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How is the U.S. flag any less embarrassing than the confederate flag?


I don't like either flag, and I link them both to idolatry and state worship.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I don't like either flag, and I link them both to idolatry and state worship.


Agreed, the Free State of Jones is the only side that got anything right during the War for Southern Independence.

----------


## KingNothing

Republicans should line-up in favor of removing the flag, because it doesn't matter at all, and in doing so they take one potential fund-raising and rally-point away from Democrats.

It's a freaking flag.  Who cares?  If dropping it prevents your opposition from raising additional money and inspiring additional voters, get rid of it.

----------


## Ronin Truth

It is also "inescapably a symbol of the right of secession, states rights, independence, standing up to northern states aggression and resistance to federal tyranny".

----------


## fisharmor

> Republicans should line-up in favor of removing the flag, because it doesn't matter at all, and in doing so they take one potential fund-raising and rally-point away from Democrats.
> 
> It's a freaking flag.  Who cares?  If dropping it prevents your opposition from raising additional money and inspiring additional voters, get rid of it.

----------


## jj-

> Republicans should line-up in favor of removing the flag, because it doesn't matter at all, and in doing so they take one potential fund-raising and rally-point away from Democrats.
> 
> It's a freaking flag.  Who cares?  If dropping it prevents your opposition from raising additional money and inspiring additional voters, get rid of it.


Why is it that the Republicans are the ones always changing their actions to "take one potential rally-point away", but it hardly ever happens the other way around?

Maybe allowing yourself to be pushed around so easily encourages them to push more?

----------


## fisharmor

> Why is it that the Republicans are the ones always changing their actions to "take one potential rally-point away", but it hardly ever happens the other way around?
> 
> Maybe allowing yourself to be pushed around so easily encourages them to push more?


No, you're missing the point.  Money and votes make YOU the bigshot, and then YOU get to push people around.
And if anyone doesn't like it, you just invade their country, kill 700,000 people, and burn their cities to the ground.

----------


## jj-

> Money and votes make YOU the bigshot, and then YOU get to push people around.


Even with that goal, I'm not sure the means will work. Maybe even with giving up and stuff, reps won't be elected.

----------


## LawnWake

> I would have preferred no comment on it and let it go.


Which would have given the media ample opportunity to put words in his mouth.

This was the right move. Especially with how the media painted him after having made thos remarks about the Civil Rights Act.

----------


## nayjevin

> Maybe allowing yourself to be pushed around so easily encourages them to push more?


It's just a universal truth that fixation on power struggle is a short-term winner and a long-term loser.

----------


## jj-

> It's just a universal truth that fixation on power struggle is a short-term winner and a long-term loser.


lol, gibberish

----------


## jj-

Seriously, I think today might be the day the Republicans lost the 16 Presidential Election by showing their base they are weak.

Unless an economic collapse occurs I guess.

----------


## devil21

> History has already been erased and rewritten: notice that even in this thread we had Vanguard101 parroting the state-sanctioned history.
> There is one, and only one, correct interpretation of the events of US history, just like there is one, and only one, correct interpretation of the constitution, race relations, state power, and just about everything else that matters in our lives.
> 
> This move to take down the flag is about nothing more than cementing the one and only one interpretation.
> The confederate battle flag may represent slavery in the minds of some.  But to those to whom it does not represent slavery, it represents the last time anyone in North America meaningfully resisted the one and only one interpretation of everything.
> 
> This move to take down the flag is about driving a nail in the coffin of the idea that there is more than one interpretation.
> I feel sorry for those who cannot see this.
> I will not forget those who see it and applaud.


There is still a percentage of people that understand what the flag represents and it is as you describe, so there hasn't been a complete re-write done yet.

Consider Gen. Robert E. Lee's response when asked to command BOTH the Union and the Confederacy but chose the Confederacy.  That sort of spirit is what is being destroyed slowly but surely.

----------


## Inkblots

> I think there should be a new flag that solely symbolizes states rights and peace amongst races with an effort to make it go viral.  Then those bitching about the Confederate flag would not be able to use race as an issue in the dialog over states rights.


That's a pretty good idea, actually.  Although you should make it be "states' powers"  only individuals have rights.

----------


## phill4paul

> You guys are absolutely ridiculous about this, and that is why people assume you are probably racist too.


   The flag originally flew over the dome of the state capitol building. In 2000, because of controversy, that flag was moved to a memorial on the State House grounds. An African American historical  memorial was erected on the east lawn in 2001. That is what is called compromise. Obviously compromise is not enough for some. Who's being absolutely ridiculous about this?

----------


## LawnWake

Flags on their own don't mean anything. They're pieces of fabric. Whatever they mean is whatever you attach to them. The Confederate flag can be a symbol of racism as much as a symbol for states rights, depending on how you use it and what you want it to represent. Given its history, either use is perfectly understandable. It's no different from what the Swastika may mean to Jews and what it means in Hinduism.

However, with even the current American government being profoundly racist. I really do not understand why the Confederate flag is supposed to be a symbol of oppression and the American flag a symbol of freedom. I'm not gonna conveniently ignore the War on Drugs.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

The battle flag is going down, let's face it.  I am a Yankee living in the south who thinks the wrong side won the civil war and I rather like the confederate flag (although I don't currently own one).  The major "feeling" is that it stands for racism and there's some "evidence" supporting that position because of many racists who use it in that manner.  There are plenty of other people who see it as a symbol of states rights and they are going to lose this one.  There really is no correct way to solve this issue.  The majority of people (fueled by the press) have come to "believe" it's a racist symbol so it's going to go away (at least in any form of state display).  I feel everyone's pain but it's a done deal...

----------


## Carlybee

Ok. I'm part Native American. My ancestors were forced to relocate from their ancestral lands, escorted by regiments carrying the U.S.Flag. I think that flag represents oppression and bondage. Not to mention the total violation of property rights. Take down those flags Mr. Gorbachev....errr...Obama. 


Dumb de dumb dumb

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The battle flag is going down, let's face it. I am a Yankee living in the south who thinks the wrong side won the civil war and I rather like the confederate flag (although I don't currently own one). The major "feeling" is that it stands for racism and there's some "evidence" supporting that position because of many racists who use it in that manner. There are plenty of other people who see it as a symbol of states rights and they are going to lose this one. There really is no correct way to solve this issue. The majority of people (fueled by the press) have come to "believe" it's a racist symbol so it's going to go away (at least in any form of state display). I feel everyone's pain but it's a done deal...


Truly we've become a pitiful Nation of Sheeple!

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Ok. I'm part Native American. My ancestors were forced to relocate from their ancestral lands, escorted by regiments carrying the U.S.Flag. I think that flag represents oppression and bondage. Not to mention the total violation of property rights. Take down those flags Mr. Gorbachev....errr...Obama. 
> 
> 
> Dumb de dumb dumb


You are quite right.  There's been far more racism under the "Stars and Stripes" but I don't see any campaign to tear it down (but I'd support one...)

----------


## AuH20

I can't wait for that traitorous SOB Roberts to make the week complete.

----------


## Carlybee

> You are quite right.  There's been far more racism under the "Stars and Stripes" but I don't see any campaign to tear it down (but I'd support one...)



Not only racism but genocide.

----------


## orenbus

Today this show would be banned.

----------


## fisharmor

> Not only racism but genocide.


Well, in the words of the anti-confederates, your side lost, so you don't get to be in the discussion anymore.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I can't wait for that traitorous SOB Roberts to make the week complete.


You talking about Affordable Care thing?  Chief Justice Roberts?

----------


## nayjevin

> The flag originally flew over the dome of the state capitol building. In 2000, because of controversy, that flag was moved to a memorial on the State House grounds. An African American historical  memorial was erected on the east lawn in 2001. That is what is called compromise. Obviously compromise is not enough for some. Who's being absolutely ridiculous about this?


That's all good, I mean those folks, who are always white, that think 'they' are coming for everything 'we' stand for and use the symbol to identify each other as brothers in this 'battle' against 'liberal media.'  It's far easier to understand how that makes people think they are racist than it is to envision their efforts convincing anyone a truth about secession and federalism.

----------


## phill4paul

> When defending a symbol, there is a law of diminishing returns in effect as to success of showing people the 'true' meaning behind the symbol.  At some point, when symbols are lost, it becomes a better proposition to move on.


    Have you ever thought that it is not about "showing people the 'true' meaning behind the symbol" but about honoring ones forebears? If people wish to remain ignorant let them. This is about those that use this symbol to remember the sacrifice of those that came before that fought for hearth and home against an invading army that wished to subjugate them to _it's_ laws. What should they move onto? What is left?

----------


## AuH20

> You talking about Affordable Care thing?  Chief Justice Roberts?


Yup. He's going to give it to us good on Friday.

----------


## jj-

> Yup. He's going to give it to us good on Friday.


Maybe he'll have fun keeping the suspense to allow McConnell and the Republican Congress to do it?

----------


## AuH20

> That's all good, I mean those folks, who are always white, that think 'they' are coming for everything 'we' stand for and use the symbol to identify each other as brothers in this 'battle' against 'liberal media.'  It's far easier to understand how that makes people think they are racist than it is to envision their efforts convincing anyone a truth about secession and federalism.


It's happening here like it occurred in Russia. Statists are going to hang their opponents with the rope that they are given. This has nothing to do with White Pride or other ridiculous assertions. 




> *The main Soviet censorship body, Glavlit, was employed not only to eliminate any undesirable printed materials, but also "to ensure that the correct ideological spin was put on every published item". Telling anything against the "Party line" was punished by imprisonment or through punitive psychiatry.*

----------


## wizardwatson

> Yup. He's going to give it to us good on Friday.


I'm watching SCOTUS too.  The orders will be given Thursday as I understand it.  Gay marriage is also pending.  It has to be Thursday or Monday for both those big cases as those are the only two days they have on schedule to give orders/opinions and Monday is the last day of SCOTUS session.  

A lot of crazy alignment.  Huge solar storm we're passing through right now actually knocked out the 4G signal on AT&T service for everyone in a certain already-weak signal spot in our part of our office building for last couple days.  Just started working again.  A lot of online chatter about the huge solar storm that happened a couple days before Fukushima.  

Anyway, just craziness all this month really.

----------


## nayjevin

> Have you ever thought that it is not about "showing people the 'true' meaning behind the symbol" but about honoring ones forebears? If people wish to remain ignorant let them. This is about those that use this symbol to remember the sacrifice of those that came before that fought for hearth and home against an invading army that wished to subjugate them to _it's_ laws. What should they move onto? What is left?


There's nothing stopping them from doing that.  But you don't honor your forebears with an outward expression, outward expressions are for advertising/attention.  And you don't use taxpayer money to use offensive symbols.

It's been better said by others in this thread.  It's dumb and there's no good solution.  Slavery is dumb, people back then were dumb, the north was dumb, lincoln was dumb, political correctness is dumb, racism is dumb, and using government to enforce opinions is dumb.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Well, in the words of the anti-confederates, your side lost, so you don't get to be in the discussion anymore.


*EVERYONE LOST.*

----------


## mit26chell

I just wanna know why so many people, including some people here, are so obsessed over some stupid piece of cloth. Flags are stupid and mean nothing. Burn them all.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I just wanna know why so many people, including some people here, are so obsessed over some stupid piece of cloth. Flags are stupid and mean nothing. Burn them all.


Yes, and the Nazi's were just burning paper.  I mean who cares?

It's the psychological implications of erasing truth and replacing it with something else.

I'm sure there were similar discussions about book burning.  Who cares?  

Racist Whites, are the new Evil Jews.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> When defending a symbol, there is a law of diminishing returns in effect as to success of showing people the 'true' meaning behind the symbol.  At some point, when symbols are lost, it becomes a better proposition to move on.


If we invented a new symbol for states rights, _that too_ would soon fall under the PC-axe.

It's not the symbol as such to which they object, it's the idea which it represents.

Put up the Gadsen flag as a replacement and watch, that too will soon be called racist, or sexist, or whatever they need to call it to discredit the idea which it really represents. 

To retreat before each of these attacks is finally to have no way to express our ideas at all, which is - of course - their goal.

And note that what applies to visual symbols like the flag applies equally well to _words_.

This is newspeak in action.

----------


## wizardwatson

Let the purging of Jews-I mean racists-from our beautiful country commence.

----------


## wizardwatson

I got an idea.  Everyone who isn't racist can wear a patch.  To show their solidarity against racism in our homeland.

This will create a sense of brotherhood and togetherness.

----------


## phill4paul

> There's nothing stopping them from doing that.  But you don't honor your forebears with an outward expression, outward expressions are for advertising/attention.  And you don't use taxpayer money to use offensive symbols.
> 
> It's been better said by others in this thread.  It's dumb and there's no good solution.  Slavery is dumb, people back then were dumb, the north was dumb, lincoln was dumb, political correctness is dumb, racism is dumb, and using government to enforce opinions is dumb.


  There _was_ a solution. There _was_ a compromise. It's never going to be enough. And you, and Paul, are fine with it. Let's all move forward into this beautiful world of PC acceptance.

----------


## Carlybee

> I got an idea.  Everyone who isn't racist can wear a patch.  To show their solidarity against racism in our homeland.
> 
> This will create a sense of brotherhood and togetherness.


Let's just all have our own individual flags.

----------


## nayjevin

> If we invented a new symbol for states rights, _that too_ would soon fall under the PC-axe.


To the extent that people who use that symbol simultaneously express views of racism.  And to the extent proponents of states rights continue to fail to recognize the obligation to address racial issues and the failures of the south in treatment of blacks, and continue to view that as an annoyance.

The annoyance of political correctness does not hold a candle to the horrors of slavery.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Let's just all have our own individual flags.


Certainly, we want to respect the diversity you as an individual bring to the collective.  But the patch shows a committment to non-hatred.  By wearing the patch of solidarity we can know that you respect the individuality of others.  

You are certainly encouraged to wear your own patch alongside the patch of solidarity and tolerance.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Let's just all have our own individual flags.


BINGO!!  My position for years is the entire "flag protocol" is WRONG.  They tell us that the flag of the USA must be higher than all other flags displayed.  I say that's backward.  If I were to fly flags showing my "allegiance" they would be displayed with the Christian flag at the top, the family crest next followed by the state flag and federal flag.  Your highest allegiance should be to your creator followed by your allegiance to your family.  Any allegiance to fictions should be at the bottom of that pole...

If you follow the flag order you see creation as a basis for flag order.  Each entity is "created" by the one above it...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Let's just all have our own individual flags.

----------


## nayjevin

> There _was_ a solution. There _was_ a compromise. It's never going to be enough.


Are you aware of the recent murders?  This does change things.




> And you, and Paul, are fine with it.


I think it's sad, and Paul thinks what he said, not what you write about what he thinks.




> Let's all move forward into this beautiful world of PC acceptance.


You are projecting your views of political correctness apologists on those who disagree with you on this issue.

----------


## Carlybee



----------


## wizardwatson

> BINGO!!  My position for years is the entire "flag protocol" is WRONG.  They tell us that the flag of the USA must be higher than all other flags displayed.  I say that's backward.  If I were to fly flags showing my "allegiance" they would be displayed with the Christian flag at the top, the family crest next followed by the state flag and federal flag.  You highest allegiance should be to your creator followed by your allegiance to your family.  Any allegiance to fictions should be at the bottom of that pole...


I'm sorry to inform you but due to the hateful message contained therein, Abrahamism has been outlawed.  

Can I interest you in some Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist texts?  

We await our true Messiah who will show that the origins of Abrahamism is indeed Satanic.  Until then we must judge the texts of Abrahamism from the standpoint of reason and truth.  And the ministers appointed to handle such things have declared Abrahamic religions to be hotbeds of hatred and intolerance.

Any attempts to further the Abrahamic religions will be reported.

----------


## phill4paul

> To the extent that people who use that symbol simultaneously express views of racism.  And to the extent proponents of states rights continue to fail to recognize the obligation to address racial issues and the failures of the south in treatment of blacks, and continue to view that as an annoyance.
> 
> The annoyance of political correctness does not hold a candle to the horrors of slavery.


  I have used that symbol. I do not "express views of racism." I as an proponent of states rights address racial issues and the failures of the *Federal* and state government in the treatment of blacks. So just $#@! off already nayjevin. Political correctness, as it stands, does not hold a candle to the horrors of slavery but, if left unchecked, you will see that it will become far, far, worse.

----------


## Chieppa1

Correct move for Rand.

----------


## juleswin

I will say it again. If you really care about this flag, fly it your house, place of business, teach your children and extended family about its history, start a scholarship fund, join a confederate heritage society or start one if none exists in your area etc etc. Do something other than whine when the state doesn't do it for you.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I will say it again. If you really care about this flag, fly it your house, place of business, teach your children and extended family about its history, start a scholarship fund, join a confederate heritage society or start one if none exists in your area etc etc. Do something other than whine when the state doesn't do it for you.


Fixed it for you:




> I will say it again. If you really care about this book burning, keep some of them in your house, place of business, teach your children and extended family about those ideas, start a scholarship fund, join a intellectual heritage society or start one if none exists in your area etc etc. Do something other than whine when the state decides to burn books it is the rightful owner of.

----------


## phill4paul

> Are you aware of the recent murders?  This does change things.


  No what murders are you talking about?  Changes things how? One wacked out weirdo pill popper kills some people and writes a wacked out weirdo pill popping manifesto and this changes everything. Really? This is where we are at?




> I think it's sad, and Paul thinks what he said, not what you write about what he thinks.


  I think it's sad too. And you know for a fact that what Paul said is what he actually believes and not political jockeying? You have some amazing powers you aren't utilizing to there full potential. I think that what he believes is that it is a State issue and beyond that he doesn't much care. 




> You are projecting your views of political correctness apologists on those who disagree with you on this issue.


  Because that is what it is. Unless, you truly believe that remembrance of one's history is racist.

----------


## juleswin

> Fixed it for you:


I don't get it. Are you saying that the state shouldn't burn books that they own? If you didn't know it, they already ban some books in public schools which is the somewhat equivalence of book burning and yet the world hasn't ended.

If you like a book, buy it, share it with your friends or spread the joy of it anyway you can without the use of the state. Don't expect the state to share your obsession or help you in anyway to spread it. Again, stop whining and get to work.

----------


## Krugminator2

I don't think most people in the South who want the Confederate to stay up are racist in the least.

 But what if you are black and live in the South Carolina?  When you see the Confederate Flag, is your first thought about the virtues of decentralized government? Slavery is the most evil institution in US and world history.  A defining characteristic of the Confederacy was the ability to own another person.  Keeping the flag over a government building is just very bad judgment. It is inconsiderate and does not represent the country's highest ideals.

----------


## phill4paul

> I don't think most people in the South who want the Confederate to stay up are racist in the least.
> 
>  But what if you are black and live in the South Carolina?  When you see the Confederate Flag, is your first thought about the virtues of decentralized government? Slavery is the most evil institution in US and world history.  A defining characteristic of the Confederacy was the ability to own another person.  Keeping the flag over a government building is just very bad judgment. It is inconsiderate and does not represent the country's highest ideals.


  It's not "Over" a government building. A compromise was reached in 2000. It was moved to a civil war memorial upon the grounds. In 2001 an African American historical memorial was created. A compromise was reached. However, for some, there is no compromise.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I don't get it. Are you saying that the state shouldn't burn books that they own? If you didn't know it, they already ban some books in public schools which is the somewhat equivalence of book burning and yet the world hasn't ended.
> 
> If you like a book, buy it, share it with your friends or spread the joy of it anyway you can without the use of the state. Don't expect the state to share your obsession or help you in anyway to spread it. Again, stop whining and get to work.


Is every political discussion about rights?

I'm pointing out that all sorts of issues are raised in light of what is occurring and you think that people are upset because the flag should stay.  It's about why it's being taken down.  It's about this watershed moment of capitulating to a false narrative.  A pretty significant one.  I'm trying to draw your attention to that.  

As the Nazi's make more and more big moves we can't just sit by and talk about "smaller government" is our goal therefore book burning means less libraries so "cool".  

This is an event which is strongly legitimizing a false narrative of white racism.  It EMPOWERS hatred.  It will probably lead to more incidents of racial violence, because "we've had enough of racists".  That is the reason I framed it as an analogy to book burning.  Not everyone cares about books being banned in school.  The whole country is absorbed in this moment however.  It is significant.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It's not "Over" a government building. A compromise was reached in 2000. It was moved to a civil war memorial upon the grounds. In 2001 an African American historical memorial was created. A compromise was reached. *However, for some, there is no compromise*.


Not when it comes to things like this.

Now we know how the Jacobins did it.

----------


## Krugminator2

> It's not "Over" a government building. A compromise was reached in 2000. It was moved to a civil war memorial upon the grounds. In 2001 an African American historical memorial was created. A compromise was reached. However, for some, there is no compromise.


Okay fine. Then change South Carolina to Mississippi.  The point is, for blacks, that part of the South's heritage is not  a source of pride. Why keep something up that symbolizes slavery and later a rallying cry for segregation? I get the arguments in favor but you are thumbing your nose at an entire group of people on public property.

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't think most people in the South who want the Confederate to stay up are racist in the least.
> 
>  But what if you are black and live in the South Carolina?  When you see the Confederate Flag, is your first thought about the virtues of decentralized government? Slavery is the most evil institution in US and world history.  A defining characteristic of the Confederacy was the ability to own another person.  Keeping the flag over a government building is just very bad judgment. It is inconsiderate and does not represent the country's highest ideals.


If that was all the flag stood for, yes. But it's not. And it should be able to serve not as a memorial to those who supported slavery, but as a testament to lives lost on all sides. Hate to tell you this, but now we are all slaves under the Stars and Stripes. Go ahead..try to escape.

----------


## kahless

> Today this show would be banned.


They will not ban it, they will just remake it with an all black cast that dodge old bumbling white racists that use the confederate flag as their symbol, with every episode a lecture on racial equality and diversity.  

Couples in the show will either be interracial, gay or transgender with every story line centered around how they deal with discrimination. Sprinkle in continual praise of Lincoln, the north and evils of the confederacy.  Guest appearances by the Kardashians and various rappers.  

All white cast members will of course be clueless racists and ignorant to the point of borderline mentally retarded. Add in a touching moment in every episode when the intellectual black character lectures the dopey white who sees the light.

Forget about hearing Waylon Jennings or anything that remotely sounds like country from the past.  It will be a country-rap opening probably by that popular country group (I forget their name) that are white but bop around like black rappers.  (The most retarded thing I ever seen in country music, but I digress.)

----------


## Krugminator2

> If that was all the flag stood for, yes. But it's not. And it should be able to serve not as a memorial to those who supported slavery, but as a testament to lives lost on all sides. Hate to tell you this, but now we are all slaves under the bars and stars. Go ahead..try to escape.


No we really aren't slaves.

----------


## Carlybee

Okay...out of this. I feel like I stumbled onto an MSNBC set and Al Sharpton is giving me the googly eyes.

Carry on my wayward sons.

----------


## TomtheTinker

> Wise men choose their battles.  Together with his past comments about the Civil Rights Act, if he would have taken the opposite stance on this flag, just imagine the soundbytes that would be spouted all over the airways.
> 
> He did the wise thing.


I agree with your statement, this isn't Rand's battle and he should not fight it. None the less I find myself increasingly frustrated with popular sentiment when it come to just about every single issue that comes up. A simple example is in the video that was posted up above. The 3 individuals to the left don't understand the idea that the states created the federal government and have no interest into opening their minds to that fact. They always default to race baiting bull crap and minimize any point of view that opposes the 2015 candy land nonsense. I am losing hope that this can be be turned around in any meaningful way.

----------


## TomtheTinker

Just to throw this out there..slavery was an institution that existed in both the south and north. When the 13 colonies fought the revolution slavery was wide spread, I don't see people wanting to take down the American flag.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> No we really aren't slaves.


No?

We're under more surveillance and control than people under the old East Germany were.

The cage is gilt edged and gold plated.

But it is still a cage.

----------


## Crashland

> If that was all the flag stood for, yes. But it's not. And it should be able to serve not as a memorial to those who supported slavery, but as a testament to lives lost on all sides. Hate to tell you this, but now we are all slaves under the Stars and Stripes. Go ahead..try to escape.


Tell that to someone who has actually been enslaved. You and I know nothing about what it means to be a slave compared to what went on back then.

----------


## Carlybee

> Tell that to someone who has actually been enslaved.


I would but I think they are all dead.

----------


## juleswin

> Is every political discussion about rights?
> 
> I'm pointing out that all sorts of issues are raised in light of what is occurring and you think that people are upset because the flag should stay.  It's about why it's being taken down.  It's about this watershed moment of capitulating to a false narrative.  A pretty significant one.  I'm trying to draw your attention to that.  
> 
> As the Nazi's make more and more big moves we can't just sit by and talk about "smaller government" is our goal therefore book burning means less libraries so "cool".  
> 
> This is an event which is strongly legitimizing a false narrative of white racism.  It EMPOWERS hatred.  It will probably lead to more incidents of racial violence, because "we've had enough of racists".  That is the reason I framed it as an analogy to book burning.  Not everyone cares about books being banned in school.  The whole country is absorbed in this moment however.  It is significant.


I do sympathize with the people that want this flag up for whatever reason. I know it must be a rough time watching the public do a guilt by association with this alleged racist killer. The state will renege on the compromise they made with the black community and the confederate heritage supporters just like the U.S. govt did with the whole voluntary union thing with the southern states.

But the thing is that the public pressure is just too much and that side is likely going to lose the public debate. Luckily for the confederate supporters, the flag is not illegal and there's a lot that can be done legally to preserve its heritage. Maybe there would be a hail mary TD pass from South Carolina voters to stop the madness but these are the same people that vote for Lindsey Graham back into office every 8 yrs so who knows what will happen.

One thing is for sure, begging the US state to preserve a symbol of a defiance of the US govt is a losing battle. Its only a matter of time before they that side lost and that time seems to be now.

----------


## Crashland

> No?
> 
> We're under more surveillance and control than people under the old East Germany were.
> 
> The cage is gilt edged and gold plated.
> 
> But it is still a cage.


You really think your "enslavement" today is comparable?

----------


## wizardwatson

> Tell that to someone who has actually been enslaved. You and I know nothing about what it means to be a slave compared to what went on back then.


All these black people are not slaves nor have they ever been slaves.  It is bizarre how that's the narrative that is stuck in everyone's head.  "Oh, those poor things, it's like because that flag is flying they are still enslaved."

We are witnessing an upsurge in a nationalist socialist Nazi inspired movement in my opinion.  

Who is enslaving you my poor downtrodden workers?
Who keeps you from getting a job?
Who attacks your churches?
Who beats you like a criminal?

White racists.  

White racists are the new Jews.  But they are only the first.  Hitler used the Jews and homosexuals as scapegoats, whereas this Nazi flavor has made the minority melting pot the hero and the WASP the "Eternal Jew".  He's a racist, tag him.  He is too rich, tag him.  He is destroying the rainforests, tag him.

The parallels are astounding.

Why blacks?  Well, just as the German working class was feeling the effects most harshly from WWI reparations, the African American community bears the brunt of the economic hardships in the U.S.  They are the German Worker's Party of the U.S.A.

Anyway, it's happening.

----------


## Crashland

> I would but I think they are all dead.


There are many people alive who either are or have been actually enslaved.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I would but I think they are all dead.


All except for the slaves still being made, bought and sold everyday in several places in Africa.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Okay fine. Then change South Carolina to Mississippi.  The point is, for blacks, that part of the South's heritage is not  a source of pride. Why keep something up that symbolizes slavery and later a rallying cry for segregation? I get the arguments in favor but you are thumbing your nose at an entire group of people on public property.


Actually, liberals were shocked by the amount of support the Confederate Flag got from black voters when Mississippi held their flag referendum. It is not "blacks" that are driving this two minutes of hate. White, Big Government liberals are the ones who hate the flag. And they hate it not because of what it represents to blacks, but because it represents a people that the liberals want to see liquidated. Blacks are nothing but pawns in this mess.

----------


## Crashland

> All these black people are not slaves nor have they ever been slaves.  It is bizarre how that's the narrative that is stuck in everyone's head.  "Oh, those poor things, it's like because that flag is flying they are still enslaved."
> 
> We are witnessing an upsurge in a nationalist socialist Nazi inspired movement in my opinion.  
> 
> Who is enslaving you my poor downtrodden workers?
> Who keeps you from getting a job?
> Who attacks your churches?
> Who beats you like a criminal?
> 
> ...


I'm totally fine with society demonizing white racists, or any racists for that matter, as long as they are still afforded their rights.

I don't understand the total apathy of individuals who choose to use a symbol shared by a lot of racists and spending zero effort to think about the message they are sending and to separate themselves from the obvious negative meaning.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I agree with your statement, this isn't Rand's battle and he should not fight it. None the less I find myself increasingly frustrated with popular sentiment when it come to just about every single issue that comes up. A simple example is in the video that was posted up above. The 3 individuals to the left don't understand the idea that the states created the federal government and have no interest into opening their minds to that fact. They always default to race baiting bull crap and minimize any point of view that opposes the 2015 candy land nonsense. I am losing hope that this can be be turned around in any meaningful way.


We all know why Rand distanced himself, and it complies with his pragmatic approach. But he opened himself to charges of timidity by waiting a week before getting a statement out. And like all the other compromisers who also caved, he left the conservative base of the GOP with no representative. 

Cowardice is not courage. How is he going to make his case that he is different from other Republicans if he buckles under the same drumbeat pressure they cave to? The PC crowd will never be satisfied until _all cultural conservative viewpoints are marginalized_ or linked to criminal extremism.

By the way, although eBay has announced they will be pulling all Confederate products from their site, you can still buy some Hillary 2008 campaign buttons sporting the Confederate flag design:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from...c=1&rmvSB=true

----------


## Carlybee

> There are many people alive who either are or have been actually enslaved.


Yes. I am one of them. I am enslaved by a system designed to keep me subservient to corporate overlords. I work. I don't have paid medical or collective bargaining rights nor have I ever received an entitlement. I work so others may have those things.  The whip lashes may not be apparent to the naked eye, but they are there.

----------


## Crashland

> Yes. I am one of them. I am enslaved by a system designed to keep me subservient to corporate overlords. I work. I don't have paid medical or collective bargaining rights nor have I ever received an entitlement. I work so others may have those things.  The whip lashes may not be apparent to the naked eye, but they are there.


No, you aren't one of them. Anyone who has actually been enslaved would gladly trade for your corporate overlord and government whiplashing.

----------


## Rudeman

Lets be real here, Rand probably thinks the same thing about the American flag but would never say it.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

*From 1641, when Massachusetts first legalized slavery, until 1865, when the Confederate struggle for independence ended, slavery was a legal institution in America that lasted over 224 years. The Confederate battle flag flew for 4 of those 224 years, but the U.S. flag and its colonial predecessors flew over legalized slavery for ALL of those 224 years. It was the U.S. flag that the slave first saw, and it was the U.S. flag that flew on the mast of New England slaves ships as they brought their human cargo to this country. It is clear, that those who attack the Confederate flag as a reminder of slavery are overlooking the most guilty and hateful of all reminders of American slavery, the U.S. flag.
.

What the South did not have was financial freedom. Southerners were slaves to the industrial demands of the north, just as blacks were slaves to the agricultural demands of the South. Growth potential was severely limited in the South, so long as the north continued to levy heavy tariffs on things that Southerners needed to purchase and heavy taxes on those things that Southerners produced. In the words of South Carolina senator John C. Calhoun in 1850, "The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north ... The South as the great exporting portion of the Union has, in reality, paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue,"(76). Unfair taxation drove Americans to war with Britain in 1775 and against each other in 1861. History is quite clear on this point.*

Lets repeat that:

*Unfair taxation drove Americans to war with Britain in 1775 and against each other in 1861. History is quite clear on this point.*

-t

----------


## Carlybee

> No, you aren't one of them. Anyone who has actually been enslaved would gladly trade for your corporate overlord and government whiplashing.


Feel free to offer up an example hotshot.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I'm totally fine with society demonizing white racists, or any racists for that matter, as long as they are still afforded their rights.
> 
> I don't understand the total apathy of individuals who choose to use a symbol shared by a lot of racists and spending zero effort to think about the message they are sending and to separate themselves from the obvious negative meaning.


Demonizing "racists" demonizes thought crime which cannot be proven.  Do you not see the difficulty in convincing people that a white person is not racist?  Go on one of these #charlestonshooting twitter feeds and see for yourself.  

Crimes are crimes and they require evidence.  What is the evidence of racism?  Feelings?  Suspicions?

There is no evidence of racism when it comes to an individual.  Therefore the only way to capitulate is to admit you are and then repent.  Or join in with the accusers.

Nowhere, in all the time I've spent watching these twitter feeds and endless rants have I actually seen a solution to this magical problem of racism.  Clearly, Christian values are not enough.  

It seems to me that the only "cure" anyone who complains about the sinister disease of racism is to lash out at this nebulous thing you can't define and HATE it with all your might.  It's a masterful stroke of psychological conditioning and national socialism.

EDIT:  So to address your point.  In order to "not be racist" I must HATE the confederate flag.  Not hating it is the first Jewish Star I now wear to identify me as a "white racist".

Even the son of the man I gave the only campaign money I have ever given to any candidate ever is furthering this ridiculous bull$#@!.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> No, you aren't one of them. Anyone who has actually been enslaved would gladly trade for your corporate overlord and government whiplashing.


Slave, serf, citizen. They all lack freedom, just on a different level and scale.

----------


## Krugminator2

> Yes. I am one of them. I am enslaved by a system designed to keep me subservient to corporate overlords. I work. I don't have paid medical or collective bargaining rights nor have I ever received an entitlement. I work so others may have those things.  The whip lashes may not be apparent to the naked eye, but they are there.


Honestly, I have zero sympathy for you or the argument you made. I am actually disgusted listening to that whiny drivel and you should be disgusted in yourself and use that as motivation to make changes in your life.

----------


## phill4paul

> No we really aren't slaves.


  No. We're sharecroppers. Not, truthfully, a cut above.

----------


## Rudeman

> Demonizing "racists" demonizes thought crime which cannot be proven.  Do you not see the difficulty in convincing people that a white person is not racist?  Go on one of these #charlestonshooting twitter feeds and see for yourself.  
> 
> Crimes are crimes and they require evidence.  What is the evidence of racism?  Feelings?  Suspicions?
> 
> There is no evidence of racism when it comes to an individual.  Therefore the only way to capitulate is to admit you are and then repent.  Or join in with the accusers.
> 
> Nowhere, in all the time I've spent watching these twitter feeds and endless rants have I actually seen a solution to this magical problem of racism.  Clearly, Christian values are not enough.  
> 
> It seems to me that the only "cure" anyone who complains about the sinister disease of racism is to lash out at this nebulous thing you can't define and HATE it with all your might.  It's a masterful stroke of psychological conditioning and national socialism.
> ...


Self-persecution. If you want to worship the Confederate flag, then worship it. Why do you care what others think about your symbol? It shouldn't come as a shock to you that some people view that flag as a symbol of racism/oppression. So the question is are you going to bow down to the pressure or will you remain defiant.

----------


## Carlybee

> Honestly, I have zero sympathy for you or the argument you made. I am actually disgusted listening to that whiny drivel and you should be disgusted in yourself and use that as motivation to make changes in your life.


That's your prerogative. You must work for the government.  I'm not asking for sympathy, simply pointing out that there are many forms of enslavement. Glad I could contribute to your pension fund.
Why would I be ashamed of being a worker who has never even drawn unemployment? Is that supposed to be a badge of honor?  Just stating facts. We are all enslaved in one way or another.

----------


## devil21

> You are quite right.  There's been far more racism under the "Stars and Stripes" but I don't see any campaign to tear it down (but I'd support one...)


Careful what you wish for!  I understand that flags are symbols and only represent what one proscribes to those symbols but don't unwittingly be a pawn for the NWO types that would love to see national identities completely destroyed.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Self-persecution. If you want to worship the Confederate flag, then worship it. Why do you care what others think about your symbol? It shouldn't come as a shock to you that some people view that flag as a symbol of racism/oppression. So the question is are you going to bow down to the pressure or will you remain defiant.


It is the whole series of events that led to it.  It isn't the flag coming down alone.  I've stated my case in far more revealing ways that make a lot more sense than your flippant PC-narrative milquetoast dismissal.

----------


## Carlybee

> Self-persecution. If you want to worship the Confederate flag, then worship it. Why do you care what others think about your symbol? It shouldn't come as a shock to you that some people view that flag as a symbol of racism/oppression. So the question is are you going to bow down to the pressure or will you remain defiant.


And why do you care about a symbol? How is it actually hurting anyone? Answer: it's not.  Kinda like guns don't shoot people...people shoot people.

----------


## nayjevin

> I have used that symbol. I do not "express views of racism." I as an proponent of states rights address racial issues and the failures of the *Federal* and state government in the treatment of blacks. So just $#@! off already nayjevin. Political correctness, as it stands, does not hold a candle to the horrors of slavery but, if left unchecked, you will see that it will become far, far, worse.


It's a reading comprehension issue.  I did not claim that all people who use that symbol for any reason are expressing views of racism.  But it happens a lot.  That you are emotionally driven to curse me over an opinion about a symbol is indicative of precisely what I have argued.




> No what murders are you talking about?  Changes things how? One wacked out weirdo pill popper kills some people and writes a wacked out weirdo pill popping manifesto and this changes everything. Really? This is where we are at?


Are you going to claim that public perception of that flag will be the same next month as it was last month?




> I think it's sad too. And you know for a fact that what Paul said is what he actually believes and not political jockeying? You have some amazing powers you aren't utilizing to there full potential. I think that what he believes is that it is a State issue and beyond that he doesn't much care.


It's not unreasonable for me to assume he's saying what he believes.




> Because that is what it is. Unless, you truly believe that remembrance of one's history is racist.


I did not say anything of the sort.  Remembrance of one's history has nothing to do with flags and symbols.




> I don't think most people in the South who want the Confederate to stay up are racist in the least.


Me neither.  And the fact that I have to clarify that over and over again shows that the politically correct liberals you so love to hate are more similar to you than you want to admit. ETA: oh, not you krugminator2.




> But what if you are black and live in the South Carolina?  When you see the Confederate Flag, is your first thought about the virtues of decentralized government? Slavery is the most evil institution in US and world history.  A defining characteristic of the Confederacy was the ability to own another person.  Keeping the flag over a government building is just very bad judgment. It is inconsiderate and does not represent the country's highest ideals.


Well said.

----------


## Rudeman

> And why do you care about a symbol? How is it actually hurting anyone? Answer: it's not.  Kinda like guns don't shoot people...people shoot people.


I don't care about that symbol, you guys/gals clearly do. I support your right to support that symbol.

----------


## nayjevin

> Do you not see the difficulty in convincing people that a white person is not racist?


 Smiling has always worked for me.

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't care about that symbol, you guys/gals clearly do. I support your right to support that symbol.


I'm a Texan I could give a flying fig about the Confederate flag. I care about the precedent that it being forced down by PC opinion sets.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

How come no one has asked why it was flying over the South Carolina state house in the first place?

It's the *VIRGINIA* battle flag!!

-t

----------


## devil21

> I don't think most people in the South who want the Confederate to stay up are racist in the least.
> 
>  But what if you are black and live in the South Carolina?  When you see the Confederate Flag, is your first thought about the virtues of decentralized government? Slavery is the most evil institution in US and world history.  A defining characteristic of the Confederacy was the ability to own another person.  Keeping the flag over a government building is just very bad judgment. It is inconsiderate and does not represent the country's highest ideals.


Here's the thing about this topic and why there's no good answer:

How many black people alive in SC that see that flag were ever slaves?  Why does a symbol affect someone that never actually was directly affected by what they think the symbol represents, other than in their own mind?

Now consider how many people of all skin colors, origins, ideologies are _currently_ slaves under the banking system?  I suspect the people that have made us *all* slaves to that system are laughing their asses off at us while this topic rages along.  Many of which have bloodline relations to the very people that conducted the slave trade in the first place.

----------


## Rudeman

> I'm a Texan I could give a flying fig about the Confederate flag. I care about the precedent that it being forced down by PC opinion sets.


I agree with you, by no means would I support the Federal government banning the Confederate Flag, but if SC decides to take it down that is SC's choice. Personally I would be defiant but that's just me.

----------


## phill4paul

> It's a reading comprehension issue.  I did not claim that all people who use that symbol for any reason are expressing views of racism.  But it happens a lot.  That you are emotionally driven to curse me over an opinion about a symbol is indicative of precisely what I have argued.


  You addressed the issue through the lens of PC collectivism. You started it. So, yeah. Emotionally driven. I'll own it. Please don't back track and proclaim that some may not but "it happens a lot." It's racist to you. Just admit it and be done with it. 




> Are you going to claim that public perception of that flag will be the same next month as it was last month?


  Again, I could give a flying $#@!. You, like others, are buying into a P.C. narrative created by media to divide. Call H. K. Edgerton a racist. Go ahead.




> It's not unreasonable for me to assume he's saying what he believes.


  Quite being so naive. You know damn well the political minefield that he walks and what he is trying to accomplish.




> I did not say anything of the sort.  Remembrance of *one's history has nothing to do with flags and symbols.*


  You have truly devolved into the realm of idiotic.

----------


## Carlybee

> I agree with you, by no means would I support the Federal government banning the Confederate Flag, but if SC decides to take it down that is SC's choice. Personally I would be defiant but that's just me.



And that's what I've said throughout but I think it should be by consensus of the people who live there.


related:  the statue of Jefferson Davis on the UT Campus was vandalized yesterday amid growing calls to have it removed.

----------


## KingNothing

> It is also "inescapably a symbol of the right of secession, states rights, independence, standing up to northern states aggression and resistance to federal tyranny".


Nah, it's just a piece of cloth.  What matters is actually embracing those things.  They're totally bereft of meaning or power when they're represented on a piece of cloth.

Symbols are for idiots and the weak.  Live a life of independence.  $#@! a flag.

----------


## TomtheTinker

> You really think your "enslavement" today is comparable?


Ask the black people in prison how much of a difference there is.

Edit: as a matter of fact ask anybody in prison. If you go against the grain you may one day find out how enslaved you really are. Naturally the evil of slavery of the past is defined by much more clear lines. That's what makes modern "slavery"  so much more dangerous. This is a type of slavery man kind may never recover from.

----------


## devil21

> Nah, it's just a piece of cloth.  What matters is actually embracing those things.  They're totally bereft of meaning or power when they're represented on a piece of cloth.
> 
> Symbols are for idiots and the weak.  *Live a life of independence.*  $#@! a flag.


Maybe you missed it but that option is in the process of being removed too.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Liberty is for all people.  It transcends skin color.  That is why the Confederate Flag, which is a symbol of racism and slavery for almost everyone who isn't a white Southerner, should be dropped as a symbol of state's rights in favor of the Gadsden Flag.

----------


## KingNothing

> And why do you care about a symbol? How is it actually hurting anyone? Answer: it's not.  Kinda like guns don't shoot people...people shoot people.


But if stupid people are scoring political points by exploiting the emotions of other stupid people while fighting us here, why partake in this battle?

We gain nothing by supporting the flag.  It gives nothing but a pedestal for our opponents to stand on.  We should fight for things that actually matter, like lower taxes, spending cuts, ending wars, prosecuting those who spy on us illegally, closing GITMO, ending the war on drugs, etc.  These things actually ruining lives.  A stupid flag isn't doing anything.

----------


## TomtheTinker

> Nah, it's just a piece of cloth.  What matters is actually embracing those things.  They're totally bereft of meaning or power when they're represented on a piece of cloth.
> 
> Symbols are for idiots and the weak.  Live a life of independence.  $#@! a flag.


yes I agree $#@! a flag. But shouldn't an individual or even a state have the independence themselves to make that decision for themselves.

----------


## KingNothing

> Maybe you missed it but that option is in the process of being removed too.


Yes, and it has nothing to do with a flag -which individuals would still be free to fly- and everything to do with taxes, unjust laws, and senseless wars.  The flag is a waste of time.  And worse, we actually lose political points every minute we spend defending it.

----------


## KingNothing

> yes I agree $#@! a flag. But shouldn't an individual or even a state have the independence themselves to make that decision for themselves.


Literally no one is arguing that.  Rand, who actually wants to change laws and government to improve our lives, just said that the government should not fly the flag.  If you want to, feel free.  Though I disagree with the sentiment, I will defend to the death your right to express yourself.

We have bigger things to worry about.  We have wars to end.  We have tax-payers to save.  We have an economy to fix, and privacy to restore.

----------


## KingNothing

> And that's what I've said throughout but I think it should be by consensus of the people who live there.
> 
> 
> related:  the statue of Jefferson Davis on the UT Campus was vandalized yesterday amid growing calls to have it removed.


If the people who want the statue to be removed can make a strong enough moral/financial case for the statue to be removed, more power to them.  If they can't, so be it.  Who cares?

Now, if you're talking about a statue of Thomas Jefferson -and some whackjobs are- that is a different story.  There's no way in hell we should be removing his likeness from federal grounds.... unless we sell all federal property and the new owner wishes to dispose of the statue.

----------


## Sam I am

> yes I agree $#@! a flag. *But shouldn't an individual or even a state have the independence themselves to make that decision for themselves.*


Agreed.  In that case, it's a good thing that Individuals and the state of South Carolina itself aren't being *forced* to take down the flag by outside entities.

----------


## Massachusetts

I do find it hilarious that everybody says "states have a right to keep the flag up or put it down", and then suggest that because some of the states are now deciding themselves to remove it in response to the negative stigma surrounding it, suddenly states rights are being violated by the court of public opinion.

Yeah..no.

It's a public property, and nobody is forcing individuals to take the flag down on private property.

----------


## phill4paul

> I do find it hilarious that everybody says "states have a right to keep the flag up or put it down", and then suggest that because some of the states are now deciding themselves to remove it in response to the negative stigma surrounding it, suddenly states rights are being violated by the court of public opinion.
> 
> Yeah..no.
> 
> It's a public property, and nobody is forcing individuals to take the flag down on private property.


  And do you find it "hilarious" that national political correctness, instigated by media, over the shooting by a wacked out pill popping weirdo is influencing these decisions?

----------


## William R

Very disappointing Rand.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You really think your "enslavement" today is comparable?


Is it whips, chains and torture?

Not universally, and not if you stay out of the way of cops.

It is *different*, but is enslavement nonetheless, and in many ways, as, or more, soul deadening than being physically chained.

----------


## AuH20



----------


## phill4paul

> If the people who want the statue to be removed can make a strong enough moral/financial case for the statue to be removed, more power to them.  If they can't, so be it.  Who cares?
> 
> Now, if you're talking about a statue of Thomas Jefferson -and some whackjobs are- that is a different story.  There's no way in hell we should be removing his likeness from federal grounds.... unless we sell all federal property and the new owner wishes to dispose of the statue.


  Thomas Jefferson. Yes, _totally_ different.

----------


## juleswin

> Very disappointing Rand.


This is one of those issues that he would get pummeled by one side no matter which side he takes and if he had tried to straddle the fence then everybody would beat him up on it. He took the stance of someone who is serious about winning a national election and love it or hate it, he is in a better position for it.

----------


## AuH20

BTW How could anyone be a pro-abortion Pastor? Isn't that slightly contradictory?

https://christianprolifenews.wordpre...mass-shooting/




> SC State Senator, Pastor, Clementa Pinckney was decidedly Pro-“Abortion” in the exercise of his power and authority as a South Carolina State Senator, voting against not only principled Personhood legislation, but even speaking and voting against weak “abortion regulation” legislation which those who work to incrementally regulate child murder-by-“abortion” favor.
> 
> Senator Pinckney did not vote against such incremental, “abortion regulation” legislation because it did not uphold the sanctity of life ( which is the correct reason to vote against such un-Biblical measures ), but because for him even such incremental measures were too anti-“abortion” ( i.e., too pro-life ! ).
> 
> God says, “Thou shalt not kill (murder).” Exodus 20:13, KJV
> 
> The Bible ( the Word of God ) says, “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: …” Proverb 8:13, KJV
> 
> Here are two examples of Senator Pinckney’s anti-life voting record over the course of five years:
> ...

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> 


Rand never said that.

----------


## AuH20

> Rand never said that.


I think the poster implies that Rand went along to get along. I can't completely blame him, then again his candidacy was supposed to buck norms.

----------


## AuH20

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-...h-any-of-this/

----------


## DaninPA

> You really think your "enslavement" today is comparable?


No, it's much more profitable for the owners.

----------


## Carlybee

> No, it's much more profitable for the owners.


Amen. Company established 1913.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-...h-any-of-this/


It's a sad day when Mark Levin is the voice of reason, and our supposed 'liberty leaders' are the chicken $#@! cowards bending to the will of the PC gestapo.

----------


## kahless

> BTW How could anyone be a pro-abortion Pastor? Isn't that slightly contradictory?
> 
> https://christianprolifenews.wordpre...mass-shooting/


If it was not for the others that Dylan Roof killed, the media should have ignored his death just like they ignore the deaths of the unborn and so many others in this country that die from acts of violence.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

I'm a Floridian, my family is from Florida, and we all recognize the Florida of yester-year is no more. My folks are all leaving and the place is turning into various shades of Cuba, Israel, and NY/NJ. The same happened to South Carolina. It is just the nature of the beast. It took the North all these years to finally eviscerate everything associated with Southern-values and heritage. The political landscape is atrocious (and that ain't all at the hands of Northern transplants either), the economic climate is coming closer to NYC day after day, and you can't mention having southern ancestors dating back into the 1700s without being called a racist. I've never liked the Battle Flag myself (for historical reasons) and have always flown the Bonnie Blue, but that may just be because I'm Floridian. Who knows. I don't expect anything less from Rand, and I imagine if he does win POTUS we can expect more of the same.

----------


## juleswin

> No, it's much more profitable for the owners.


You say profits like its a bad thing. For the record, I'll prefer to be a slave for an efficient plantation that is making money that one that if threading water. The question to ask is this, has the condition in the new plantation changed for the better or worse? 

If you answer worse, then there is something seriously wrong with you. People are dying to come to this plantation to become so called new slaves. I read this sort of things with people comparing the situation we have now to slavery, the police system to ISIS. But no of those people would trade old type slavery or ISIS for what we have now or the current police system for ISIS.

----------


## AuH20

> I'm a Floridian, my family is from Florida, and we all recognize the Florida of yester-year is no more. My folks are all leaving and the place is turning into various shades of Cuba, Israel, and NY/NJ. The same happened to South Carolina. It is just the nature of the beast. It took the North all these years to finally eviscerate everything associated with Southern-values and heritage. The political landscape is atrocious (and that ain't all at the hands of Northern transplants either), the economic climate is coming closer to NYC day after day, and you can't mention having southern ancestors dating back into the 1700s without being called a racist. I've never liked the Battle Flag myself (for historical reasons) and have always flown the Bonnie Blue, but that may just be because I'm Floridian. Who knows. I don't expect anything less from Rand, and I imagine if he does win POTUS we can expect more of the same.


Our only hope is a collapse and maybe we can take back pockets. But if the status quo continues, this country will plunge into the depths of hell, if it's not their already.

----------


## Carlybee

> You say profits like its a bad thing. For the record, I'll prefer to be a slave for an efficient plantation that is making money that one that if threading water. The question to ask is this, has the condition in the new plantation changed for the better or worse? 
> 
> If you answer worse, then there is something seriously wrong with you. People are dying to come to this plantation to become so called new slaves. I read this sort of things with people comparing the situation we have now to slavery, the police system to ISIS. But no of those people would trade old type slavery or ISIS for what we have now or the current police system for ISIS.



Really Jules? You think the US Government is an efficient plantation?

----------


## Dianne

> Wise men choose their battles.  Together with his past comments about the Civil Rights Act, if he would have taken the opposite stance on this flag, just imagine the soundbytes that would be spouted all over the airways.
> 
> He did the wise thing.


I agree with you; that Rand has to pick his battles.    Although in my heart I question the difference in the Confederate flag and the United States Flag.    They are both symbols of slavery, war, death and destruction.   The Confederate flag is believed to have set upon a path of slavery to one race of people.     The United States Flag does not discriminate, yet represents slavery upon each race.  Of course Rand can't say that.

----------


## DaninPA

> You say profits like its a bad thing. For the record, I'll prefer to be a slave for an efficient plantation that is making money that one that if threading water. The question to ask is this, has the condition in the new plantation changed for the better or worse?


Of course life today is better than being whipped at the whim of your master. But the threat of violence is still there. 





> If you answer worse, then there is something seriously wrong with you. People are dying to come to this plantation to become so called new slaves. I read this sort of things with people comparing the situation we have now to slavery, the police system to ISIS. But no of those people would trade old type slavery or ISIS for what we have now or the current police system for ISIS.


Today's slaves do live far better, and _more productive_  lives than those who lived under "bodily" slavery. That's why I said it's more profitable for the owners.

----------


## Rudeman

> I agree with you; although one might ask what the difference is in the Confederate flag and the United States Flag.    They are both symbols of slavery, war,  and death.   I mean really, what's the difference?


It's "acceptable" to condemn one and not the other.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Now, if you're talking about a statue of Thomas Jefferson -and some whackjobs are- that is a different story.


That's the problem.

Give one set of whackjobs an inch, the next set will take a mile.

It will only be a matter of time before that is exactly what is happening.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

QUOTE=Tywysog Cymru;5903870]Liberty is for all people.  It transcends skin color.  *That is why the Confederate Flag, which is a symbol of racism and slavery for almost everyone* who isn't a white Southerner, should be dropped as a symbol of state's rights in favor of the Gadsden Flag.[ QUOTE]

Same can be said of "Old Glory".  Burn 'em all and quit with the flag nonsense.  Leave symbols to the symbol-minded.



ETA: Oops, dianne beat me to the punch. :/ ~shrugs~

----------


## juleswin

> Really Jules? You think the US Government is an efficient plantation?


No saying there isn't room for improvement. We see Rand running to improve the system but when compared to the really bad type of slavery, this system we have right now is 1000x more efficient. Say what you will about the US but it is an economic, military, entertainment etc etc juggernaut. Loads of people around the world want to live it it, millions of others invests or wants to invest in its economy. With many trying to copy its success

Militarily, nobody can compare. That is not something you can achieve by being inefficient.

----------


## Aratus

> Our good friend in liberty from the state of South Carolina agrees.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/TomDavisSC/...03089433122724





> weak.
> 
> is there any Republican candidate with balls who didn't trash the confederate flag?





> And while I have taken issue with some of Rand's "weak sauce" positions in the past, there's not a damn thing he could have done in this situation, where you now have a whirling vortex of doom of media and talking heads all spun up and out of control, but to make the statement he did.
> 
> Might as well have been King Canute giving orders to the tide as to try and stand up to a full blown, F5, media frenzy.





> Heck of a distraction operation ongoing.  Well played, TPTB.
> 
> I don't agree with Rand much on this topic but at least he's correct that it's a state issue and if SC wants to remove it, that's up to them.  I hate to see manufactured political pressures used to erase (and eventually rewrite, most likely) history though.





> I agree with "wise men pick their battles"
> 
> Rand wants to be president, and I *want* him to be president.
> 
> We've got a *lot* bigger fish to fry. If going PC on this 'flag' issue helps avoid some land mines on the way to the White House, so be it.
> 
> Sometimes you got to surrender a few battles in order to win the war.





> Agreed, the Free State of Jones is the only side that got anything right during the War for Southern Independence.





> There is still a percentage of people that understand what the flag represents and it is as you describe, so there hasn't been a complete re-write done yet.
> 
> Consider Gen. Robert E. Lee's response when asked to command BOTH the Union and the Confederacy but chose the Confederacy.  That sort of spirit is what is being destroyed slowly but surely.





> The battle flag is going down, let's face it.  I am a Yankee living in the south who thinks the wrong side won the civil war and I rather like the confederate flag (although I don't currently own one).  The major "feeling" is that it stands for racism and there's some "evidence" supporting that position because of many racists who use it in that manner.  There are plenty of other people who see it as a symbol of states rights and they are going to lose this one.  There really is no correct way to solve this issue.  The majority of people (fueled by the press) have come to "believe" it's a racist symbol so it's going to go away (at least in any form of state display).  I feel everyone's pain but it's a done deal...



I DO UNDERSTAND THE FLYING OF SMALL, INDIVIDUAL FLAGS OF THE GRAVES OF THE DEAD.  BETWEEN  1861 to 1865 MOST SOLDIERS WORE THE UNIFORM
OF ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER SAVE FOR THE BRAVE, DECEPTIVE AND OFTEN "TWO FACED" FOOLS WHO'D ALTERNATE UNIFORMS AND ACCEPT THE BOUNTY 
PAID OUT BY ONE ARMY AND THEN THE OTHER.  OUR CIVIL WAR WAS A POLARIZING WAR.  IN TIME BOTH ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND JEFFERSON DAVIS WENT
AFTER THEIR CRITICS BY SHUTTING DOWN VERY BIASED AND OPINIONATED NEWSPAPERS.  THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS SUSPENDED. ONE MILLION
AMERICANS DIED IN THAT NATIONAL TRAGEDY.  THIS YOUNG MAN SIMPLY WENT INTO A CHURCH OF TOTAL & COMPLETE STRANGERS AND SHOT NINE PEOPLE.
 JACK HUNTER, NIKKI HALEY AND RAND PAUL HAVE BEEN HONEST WITH US.  I RESPECT THEIR RESPECTIVE STANCES ON THIS. IF WE ALL SIMPLY DO NOT FUEL
THIS ANY FURTHER, AND SIMPLY SEE THIS AS A NATIONAL TRAGEDY, THESE NINE DEATHS, WE WILL BE LIVING UP TO OUR CHERISHED IDEALS AS A REPUBLIC.

----------


## juleswin

> Of course life today is better than being whipped at the whim of your master. But the threat of violence is still there. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today's slaves do live far better, and _more productive_  lives than those who lived under "bodily" slavery. That's why I said it's more profitable for the owners.


I agree, the only reason I replied is because you sorta implied in your post that profits is a bad thing. I personally think it was the profits that enabled the slave masters to release the slaves in the first play. We should be saying "yay, profits".

----------


## Rudeman

> weak.
> 
> is there any Republican candidate with balls who didn't trash the confederate flag?



Clearly do no wrong Trump right? Oh wait no.


Good news though Bill Kristol is on your side.

----------


## Aratus

"The Charleston murders have brought a festering issue back to the surface, and it simply can’t be ignored. Regardless of who’s right from a historical standpoint, it is indisputable that the Confederate battle flag now flying on the State House grounds has been misappropriated by hate groups as a symbol of their hatred, and while I respect the views of those who proudly view this flag as a symbol of their heritage, we must find another way to honor that heritage. This isn’t about re-opening an old wound; it’s about mending one that never properly healed."                 ---------    TOM DAVIS  on Facebook yesterday at 11:10 a.m -------

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> "The Charleston murders have brought a festering issue back to the surface, and it simply can’t be ignored. Regardless of who’s right from a historical standpoint, it is indisputable that the Confederate battle flag now flying on the State House grounds has been misappropriated by hate groups as a symbol of their hatred, and while I respect the views of those who proudly view this flag as a symbol of their heritage, we must find another way to honor that heritage. This isn’t about re-opening an old wound; it’s about mending one that never properly healed."                 ---------    TOM DAVIS  on Facebook yesterday at 11:10 a.m -------


At least one of the liberty-friendly political figures out there isn't a sniveling coward. From MS State Senator Chris McDaniel's Facebook account:

"SENATOR CHRIS MCDANIEL RELEASES STATEMENT REGARDING MISSISSIPPI'S STATE FLAG
June 23, 2015. (Laurel, MS.) - Senator Chris McDaniel today released the following statement regarding calls to do away with Mississippi's official state flag.
"The price we pay to live in a free society is to occasionally be offended. A cultural or historical cleansing of all things potentially offensive will do nothing to alleviate the problems caused by racism. To pretend otherwise is a disservice to serious discourse on the subject.
We must examine our hearts and not resort to placing emotional blame for problems we face on symbols such as a flag.
I love all Mississippians, regardless of race or political affiliation. We are a family. But I disagree with those who use political correctness to silence differing viewpoints. I likewise believe it is in poor taste to use the tragic South Carolina massacre to promote a political agenda.
I understand, very well, both sides of the debate. Slavery is our nation's original sin, and government sanctioned discrimination is evil. As a strong proponent of individual rights, I will always defend individuals against the abuses of government and fight for liberty by insisting government's reach remain limited.
However, at the end of the day, political correctness is about power; consequently, its practitioners will never be appeased.
They won't stop until dissent is crushed and tolerance of opposing viewpoints is no longer accepted.
I will not be a part of such an agenda.
The people of Mississippi have already decided this issue, by referendum. I will respect their wishes."

----------


## Carlybee

> At least one of the liberty-friendly political figures out there isn't a sniveling coward. From MS State Senator Chris McDaniel's Facebook account:
> 
> "SENATOR CHRIS MCDANIEL RELEASES STATEMENT REGARDING MISSISSIPPI'S STATE FLAG
> June 23, 2015. (Laurel, MS.) - Senator Chris McDaniel today released the following statement regarding calls to do away with Mississippi's official state flag.
> "The price we pay to live in a free society is to occasionally be offended. A cultural or historical cleansing of all things potentially offensive will do nothing to alleviate the problems caused by racism. To pretend otherwise is a disservice to serious discourse on the subject.
> We must examine our hearts and not resort to placing emotional blame for problems we face on symbols such as a flag.
> I love all Mississippians, regardless of race or political affiliation. We are a family. But I disagree with those who use political correctness to silence differing viewpoints. I likewise believe it is in poor taste to use the tragic South Carolina massacre to promote a political agenda.
> I understand, very well, both sides of the debate. Slavery is our nation's original sin, and government sanctioned discrimination is evil. As a strong proponent of individual rights, I will always defend individuals against the abuses of government and fight for liberty by insisting government's reach remain limited.
> However, at the end of the day, political correctness is about power; consequently, its practitioners will never be appeased.
> ...



Yep

----------


## wizardwatson

> Our only hope is a collapse and maybe we can take back pockets. But if the status quo continues, this country will plunge into the depths of hell, if it's not their already.


It's there.

It's all about hate, trying to call itself good.




> Isaiah 5:20-21  Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
> 
> Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!


They are HATING that Dylann wasn't beaten while arrested.  They are HATING that he got Burger King!  LOL.

I was arrested once and jailed up with a black guy.  We got White Castle.  We were IN A JAIL and got White Castle.  You know why?  Because cops are lazy and they aren't going to go grocery shopping for bologna just to make you suffer.  I did get bologna once but that was in county.  

Anyway, they want the cops to be evil "For their sake".  They don't want justice and peace they want revenge.  Revenge for their prideful view of themselves.  Not for slavery which they never endured more than many of the white folks they hate.  

Dylann's sister cancelled her wedding on account of this fiasco.  All I saw on Twitter was "$#@! HER".  "$#@! DYLANN'S FAMILY".  "OH, WAH, WAH!"  What was she supposed to do?  She cancelled out of respect.  They would only have hated her more if she actually had her wedding.  

It's not ok to hate blacks for what "some" blacks do, but it's ok to hate Dylann's family for what he did.  

Governor says let's take down flag.  One black twitterers response.  "It's good she took it down, but hero?  Not so fast.."  Until they are worshipped and the "racists" have self-deprecated and shamed themselves and the hateful pride of some of these people is satiated there will be no forgiveness.  

All this talk about forgiveness is a charade.  The Sunday service following the massacre was full of "thank yous" to people who donated money, to law enforcement, etc.  No talk of "may God show us our error."  No talk of following God's law.  Only God is with us.  Jesus is with us.  We will have justice!

They are not praying to the God of Abraham.  They are using the blood of the victims to cloak themselves in righteousness.  

All events are orchestrated by God.  And in this test, when God has let the oppressed black masses of vile America speak with one voice, that voice is only hatred and they have failed the test.  

A generation who has abandoned God that brought them out of slavery and sought after revenge.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Originally Posted by *ChristianAnarchist*  
> 				You are quite right.  There's been far more  racism under the "Stars and Stripes" but I don't see any campaign to  tear it down (but I'd support one...)
> 
> 
> Careful what  you wish for!  I understand that flags are symbols and only represent  what one proscribes to those symbols but don't unwittingly be a pawn for  the NWO types that would love to see national identities completely  destroyed.


Don't know or care what the NWO types want but I will say what I want and I would love to see nations disappear.  It's the whole "fiction government" thing that has infringed on human rights since the first king walked the earth.  Without these goons telling us what to do, who to kill and how much of our money to give them mankind would have accomplished so much more than we have to date.  It's these parasites that keep holding us back with the false idea that somehow these goons have "authority" over the common man...

----------


## Aratus

Dylann Roof killed nine complete and total strangers. I don't hate him but i don't praise him at all or want to fall into his gambits and games...

----------


## AuH20

> At least one of the liberty-friendly political figures out there isn't a sniveling coward. From MS State Senator Chris McDaniel's Facebook account:
> 
> "SENATOR CHRIS MCDANIEL RELEASES STATEMENT REGARDING MISSISSIPPI'S STATE FLAG
> June 23, 2015. (Laurel, MS.) - Senator Chris McDaniel today released the following statement regarding calls to do away with Mississippi's official state flag.
> "The price we pay to live in a free society is to occasionally be offended. A cultural or historical cleansing of all things potentially offensive will do nothing to alleviate the problems caused by racism. To pretend otherwise is a disservice to serious discourse on the subject.
> We must examine our hearts and not resort to placing emotional blame for problems we face on symbols such as a flag.
> I love all Mississippians, regardless of race or political affiliation. We are a family. But I disagree with those who use political correctness to silence differing viewpoints. I likewise believe it is in poor taste to use the tragic South Carolina massacre to promote a political agenda.
> I understand, very well, both sides of the debate. Slavery is our nation's original sin, and government sanctioned discrimination is evil. As a strong proponent of individual rights, I will always defend individuals against the abuses of government and fight for liberty by insisting government's reach remain limited.
> However, at the end of the day, political correctness is about power; consequently, its practitioners will never be appeased.
> ...


That was an ideal response. It covered all the bases.

----------


## wizardwatson

> That was an ideal response. It covered all the bases.


I agree with respect to the flag issue, but with respect to the Nazi reverse-lynching movement that's forming, no.

----------


## Crashland

> It's there.
> 
> It's all about hate, trying to call itself good.
> 
> 
> 
> They are HATING that Dylann wasn't beaten while arrested.  They are HATING that he got Burger King!  LOL.
> 
> I was arrested once and jailed up with a black guy.  We got White Castle.  We were IN A JAIL and got White Castle.  You know why?  Because cops are lazy and they aren't going to go grocery shopping for bologna just to make you suffer.  I did get bologna once but that was in county.  
> ...


To me it's not a matter of self-deprecation or self-shame. I as a white male am not responsible for what other people do or have done in the past. But I do get to choose whether or not to acknowledge racism where it does exist, or turn a blind eye to it. Racism is something that is present in all groups, although it disproportionally _affects_ some more than others due to the power dynamic.

IMO, "white shaming" is ridiculous and misguided. The "us" and "them" groupthink needs to stop everywhere. However when I myself criticize others about the Confederate flag, I am not accusing people of being racist, only of being inconsiderate or apathetic to a fault about the message they are sending.

----------


## squirl22

I just saw this over at Breitbart:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ay-pride-flag/




> Under the banner of what is dishonestly called a gay pride or gay  “rights” flag, hate, fascism, and intolerance has festered for years,  specifically against Christians and conservatives.  Under the auspices  of a “rights and equality” symbol, Leftists have been on a rampage to  take way the rights of others through bullying, lies, and online  terrorism.
> 
>  The list of misdeeds and victims resulting from an increasingly emboldened Big Gay Hate Machine continues to grow

----------


## wizardwatson

> To me it's not a matter of self-deprecation or self-shame. I as a white male am not responsible for what other people do or have done in the past. But I do get to choose whether or not to acknowledge racism where it does exist, or turn a blind eye to it. Racism is something that is present in all groups, although it disproportionally _affects_ some more than others due to the power dynamic.
> 
> IMO, "white shaming" is ridiculous and misguided. The "us" and "them" groupthink needs to stop everywhere. However when I myself criticize others about the Confederate flag, I am not accusing people of being racist, only of being inconsiderate or apathetic to a fault about the message they are sending.


The fact is that the people who understand what the flag means and it's history are in the minority.  We are erasing the history of a minority of people on the side of truth, I don't say "goodness", for the sake of the revenge of an ignorant minority mad at another ignorant minority who co-opted the flag.

It would be like saying you understand why they had to lynch Ron Paul because of all the things the Tea Party is guilty of.

----------


## Massachusetts

> And do you find it "hilarious" that national political correctness, instigated by media, over the shooting by a wacked out pill popping weirdo is influencing these decisions?


Tell me more about how taking a flag down from public property violates yours, or anybody for that matter's individual liberty.

----------


## Crashland

> The fact is that the people who understand what the flag means and it's history are in the minority.  We are erasing the history of a minority of people on the side of truth, I don't say "goodness", for the sake of the revenge of an ignorant minority mad at another ignorant minority who co-opted the flag.
> 
> It would be like saying you understand why they had to lynch Ron Paul because of all the things the Tea Party is guilty of.


That's the thing though, there really isn't a "right" answer to what the flag symbolizes. It's not a matter of ignorant minorities. People who see the flag as a symbol of racism aren't wrong, and neither are the people who see it as a symbol of states rights or something else. It doesn't even matter which one came first. The symbol has no inherent meaning -- it is assigned its meaning by others. Even at the time of the Civil War the thing meant different things to different people. It's almost like deciding to use an ambiguous word knowing full well that it will be interpreted differently than how you might "mean" it -- like describing someone else as "gay" when you only meant it in the _original_ sense of the word. I realize this is not a perfect analogy but it is good enough to demonstrate the point. Displaying the confederate flag for states rights is being oblivious to a fault about the message you are sending to others.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Tell me more about how taking a flag down from public property violates yours, or anybody for that matter's individual liberty.


More from the "if it doesn't violate your rights, it isn't worth arguing about" crowd.  It may surprise you to know that doing what's right goes beyond the selfish myopic anarcho-libertarian concept of "this stuff is mine".

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> QUOTE=Tywysog Cymru;5903870]Liberty is for all people.  It transcends skin color.  *That is why the Confederate Flag, which is a symbol of racism and slavery for almost everyone* who isn't a white Southerner, should be dropped as a symbol of state's rights in favor of the Gadsden Flag.[ QUOTE]
> 
> Same can be said of "Old Glory".  Burn 'em all and quit with the flag nonsense.  Leave symbols to the symbol-minded.
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: Oops, dianne beat me to the punch. :/ ~shrugs~


Why should we associate liberty with a flag that represents racism and slavery to most people?  The United States was founded on freedom while the CSA was founded on slavery.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I just saw this over at Breitbart:
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ay-pride-flag/


I agree, take both down.  They are both offensive to God.

----------


## Massachusetts

> More from the "if it doesn't violate your rights, it isn't worth arguing about" crowd.  It may surprise you to know that doing what's right goes beyond the selfish myopic anarcho-libertarian concept of "this stuff is mine".


Look - the swastika wasn't always associated with Nazis either, but people no longer tolerate its use in the Western world because it has become a symbol associated with hatred, bigotry, anti-semitism, and evil. Just like people no longer tolerate racism. Yet, in Eastern culture, it is still a symbol used to worship in various religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.

Have you ever stopped to think that symbols mean different things to different people and there's nothing noble or envious about always taking the opposite position of what may be "politically correct" at any given time?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> At least one of the liberty-friendly political figures out there isn't a *sniveling coward.* From MS State Senator Chris McDaniel's Facebook account:


"Sniveling coward"

Maybe, just maybe, all these liberty supporters who want the flag to be taken down, actually read the secession documents and understood that the reason the Southern States seceded was because they were afraid Lincoln was going to take away their slaves.

I hate that ugly flag and I am not a "sniveling coward," I'm just voicing my honest opinion, which also happens to be the opinion of almost everyone who is not a white Southerner.  Do not accuse people of cowardice for expressing honest opinions.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Look - the swastika wasn't always associated with Nazis either, but people no longer tolerate its use in the Western world because it has become a symbol associated with hatred, bigotry, anti-semitism, and evil. Just like people no longer tolerate racism. Yet, in Eastern culture, it is still a symbol used to worship in various religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.
> 
> Have you ever stopped to think that symbols mean different things to different people and there's nothing noble or envious about always taking the opposite position of what may be "politically correct" at any given time?


There's a swastika in my house here in Topeka.  It's a Hindu symbol.  Shall I tell my Hindu ex-wife that if anyone is offended when they come over she should cover it up?

And to answer your question, whenever "politically correct" means covering the truth with a lie then I'm afraid that it is noble to always take the politically non-correct position.  

I don't buy into this race-baiting hate garbage.

What is white privilege?  It's envy.  Do we go around society every day saying "rich privilege" to everyone who doesn't put back groceries they can't afford?  Is it noble to wish suffering on those who don't suffer as we suffer?

Black pride.  Gay pride.  Black Empowerment. 

"pride is an abomination".  That is the Christian position.  Why does no one say that?  I'm proud to be this.  I'm proud to be that.  Who are you?  You are a sinner formed from the dust who only draws breath on this earth by the grace of God.  

These are Christian beliefs that were held by ACTUAL slaves who prayed daily for their redeemer.  Who suffered and toiled only to be buried never knowing freedom.  They shall be comforted and walk in the Kingdom of the Lord.  This hate-filled generation cloaking themselves in righteousness with the blood of crime victims who further hate, and abortion, and all manner of God-mocking will likely see hell before they are resurrected to judgement.

We are supposed to be focused on the real enemy.  The Federal Reserve.  Government corruption.  War.  Poverty.  By capitulating to this false narrative we merely empower and prolong and exacerbate this generation of evil that has grown up in this country.

So once again I respectfully dissent.  From Rand Paul's pandering and from all these atrocious lies and worship of this false narrative.

----------


## phill4paul

> Tell me more about how taking a flag down from public property violates yours, or anybody for that matter's individual liberty.


  A public place. In this case a State house. A State that fought under the Confederacy. A flag that is intertwined in it's history. A flag that represents the fallen sons of it's citizen's. It's "public."

----------


## Crashland

> There's a swastika in my house here in Topeka.  It's a Hindu symbol.  Shall I tell my Hindu ex-wife that if anyone is offended when they come over she should cover it up?
> 
> And to answer your question, whenever "politically correct" means covering the truth with a lie then I'm afraid that it is noble to always take the politically non-correct position.


Symbols have no inherently true or false meaning.

----------


## wizardwatson

> A public place. In this case a State house. A State that fought under the Confederacy. A flag that is intertwined in it's history. A flag that represents the fallen sons of it's citizen's. It's "public."


There were black confederate soldiers too by the way that died for that flag.  

And furthermore, to Rand's pandering.

Rand mumbled under his breath so to speak that black crime WAS NOT about racism, but about a "spiritual problem".  I actually agreed with that.  But when he has a chance to shine on that point and speak the truth at the most critical point he folded.

He stood on his feet for 10 hours making a pointless political move to support his campaign and pander to the libertarians and he covered up the truth about that flag in about 10 seconds to do the same with the black power demographic.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Symbols have no inherently true or false meaning.


The flag has a story.  And the story you tell about it has a true or false version.  The story responsible for it being taken down is a false one.

Some people probably think I'm racist if they read my writing.  Some people might not.  Some people would be wrong.  Some people would be right.

I don't know what you want me to say here.  "There's no real right or wrong."  Is that it?  Because there is, and I won't say it.

----------


## Massachusetts

> The flag has a story.  And the story you tell about it has a true or false version.  The story responsible for it being taken down is a false one.
> 
> Some people probably think I'm racist if they read my writing.  Some people might not.  Some people would be wrong.  Some people would be right.
> 
> I don't know what you want me to say here.  "There's no real right or wrong."  Is that it?  Because there is, and I won't say it.


Bro, the Confederate Constitution not only legalized slavery, it validated it, justified it, and developed a legal system to protect it.

That is a fact. What you are saying about states rights being an important element is true as well. Both can be true.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> "Sniveling coward"
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, all these liberty supporters who want the flag to be taken down, actually read the secession documents and understood that the reason the Southern States seceded was because they were afraid Lincoln was going to take away their slaves.
> 
> I hate that ugly flag and I am not a "sniveling coward," I'm just voicing my honest opinion, which also happens to be the opinion of almost everyone who is not a white Southerner.  Do not accuse people of cowardice for expressing honest opinions.


Have you read the secession documents of the States that joined the CSA after Lincoln had raised an invading army? Have you read the Cherokee Declaration of Causes? Now, I'm not a big fan of the Battle Flag myself (for historical reasons being that it was the Virginian Battle Flag of the Army of the Northern Potomac, which had little to do with the rest of the CSA), and I fly the Bonnie Blue (being a Floridian and all is much closer to our history) and the Cherokee Nation flag (being I'm half Cherokee), but to say that slavery was the epitomization of the war for every southerner is a joke. For the elites of the first wave of secession, yes, surely. For the common person who fought that war? Absolutely not. Only 3% of the Southern population even owned slaves, and not more than 10% cared that much. There were also large-scale abolition movements in the South at this time as well. Hell, South Carolina threatened to secede in the 1830s because of taxation and tariffs and Andrew Jackson threatened to invade them as well. For the elites, it had as much to do with slaves as southern political power at the Federal level (the whole point of Clay's compromise...). For the average southerner, it was about defending their homes, their family, and their political-leanings (which were much more pro-liberty for the most part, than the North...). 

I think South Carolina should take it down because it doesn't represent South Carolina and they should instead put up either the CSA flag, or one of their regimental flags. Same with the other states. Why is the Army of Northern Potomac flying at the Florida State Capital? Makes no sense. Put up the Bonnie Blue or the 3rd FL. Regimental Co. B flag that is much more symbolic of the Southern people.

----------


## phill4paul

> Bro, the Confederate Constitution not only legalized slavery, it validated it, justified it, and developed a legal system to protect it.
> 
> That is a fact. What you are saying about states rights being an important element is true as well. Both can be true.


  So did the U.S. Constitution. And it would not have changed as quickly as it did except for the secession of Southern States and the political expedience that was needed to quell insurrection.

----------


## Crashland

> The flag has a story.  And the story you tell about it has a true or false version.  The story responsible for it being taken down is a false one.
> 
> Some people probably think I'm racist if they read my writing.  Some people might not.  Some people would be wrong.  Some people would be right.
> 
> I don't know what you want me to say here.  "There's no real right or wrong."  Is that it?  Because there is, and I won't say it.


Stop focusing on the historicity. You can debate all day about what the confederacy was and what it stood for. Ultimately, the answer to that question isn't the reason why it is a bad idea to display the flag.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Bro, the Confederate Constitution not only legalized slavery, it validated it, justified it, and developed a legal system to protect it.
> 
> That is a fact. What you are saying about states rights being an important element is true as well. Both can be true.


We aren't even talking about the truth of what that flag represents.  We are talking about one thing and one thing only.  The narrative that the confederate flag is a symbol of racist hatred.  And we are talking about how the societal purging of that symbol gives credence to the narrative that white people in America are racist.  That is what the vast, vast majority of those in the media and those on the social networks are saying.  

And that is what Rand Paul is saying as this thread title indicates.  

By the series of events beginning with Dylann Roof's strategic placement of that flag in his photos (taken by who by the way?) we have gone down this road of validating a racial narrative for societies ills instead of the RON PAUL FORUMS narrative that we are a nation who has abandoned law for corruption, greed, and a way of life based on easy money and foreign oppression.  

And even worse we have taken this position FOR POLITICAL GAIN.

This movement is NOTHING BUT NARRATIVE.  Do we have money?  Do we have a large blossoming field of liberty oriented candidates?  Do we have an army of social volunteers?  Do we have the public on our side?  Do we have ANY advantage whatsoever besides the words we speak?  

The only thing we HAD (emphasis on past tense near breaking point) on our side was the truth.  And ever since Rand started running we seem to be going away from that as well.

Well, good .... $#@!ing .... luck, people.

----------


## Rudeman

You may look favorably towards the Confederate flag, others may not.
You may look favorably towards the American flag, others may not
You may look favorably towards a swastika, others may not.

A symbol can mean different things to different people, your opinion isn't absolute.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Stop focusing on the historicity. You can debate all day about what the confederacy was and what it stood for. Ultimately, the answer to that question isn't the reason why it is a bad idea to display the flag.


I see, so educating people about the truth isn't a priority.  See my above post.  

The only reason it's a "bad idea" to display the flag is for political pandering to a misguided demographic.  Again, see above post.

----------


## William Tell

> At least one of the liberty-friendly political figures out there isn't a sniveling coward. From MS State Senator Chris McDaniel's Facebook account:
> 
> "SENATOR CHRIS MCDANIEL RELEASES STATEMENT REGARDING MISSISSIPPI'S STATE FLAG
> June 23, 2015. (Laurel, MS.) - Senator Chris McDaniel today released the following statement regarding calls to do away with Mississippi's official state flag.
> "The price we pay to live in a free society is to occasionally be offended. A cultural or historical cleansing of all things potentially offensive will do nothing to alleviate the problems caused by racism. To pretend otherwise is a disservice to serious discourse on the subject.
> We must examine our hearts and not resort to placing emotional blame for problems we face on symbols such as a flag.
> I love all Mississippians, regardless of race or political affiliation. We are a family. But I disagree with those who use political correctness to silence differing viewpoints. I likewise believe it is in poor taste to use the tragic South Carolina massacre to promote a political agenda.
> I understand, very well, both sides of the debate. Slavery is our nation's original sin, and government sanctioned discrimination is evil. As a strong proponent of individual rights, I will always defend individuals against the abuses of government and fight for liberty by insisting government's reach remain limited.
> However, at the end of the day, political correctness is about power; consequently, its practitioners will never be appeased.
> ...


Chris McDaniel is wonderful!

----------


## twomp

If you think removing the flag off of state owned buildings will somehow "reduce" racism, you are an idiot.
If you think removing the flag off of state owned buildings will somehow "destroy" your heritage, you are an idiot.

Don't worship flags.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You may look favorably towards the Confederate flag, others may not.
> You may look favorably towards the American flag, others may not
> You may look favorably towards a swastika, others may not.
> 
> A symbol can mean different things to different people, your opinion isn't absolute.


Then why speak it on this forum?  If "white silence is violence" is just as valid as "end the fed" why are you here instead of there?

----------


## William Tell

> Why should we associate liberty with a flag that represents racism and slavery to most people?  The United States was founded on freedom while the CSA was founded on slavery.


  Slavery existed in the early United States.

----------


## Rudeman

> Then why speak it on this forum?  If "white silence is violence" is just as valid as "end the fed" why are you here instead of there?


I am here because I support Ron and Rand Paul. Why are you here?

----------


## wizardwatson

> Slavery existed in the early United States.


Post #269 says we shouldn't focus on the historicity.  

It's funny that when the truth problem comes up is usually when a giant lie is being told.  The reason being a lie requires another lie to back it up usually.  No matter how small the lie is on the surface it will always run into lack of support when you dig far enough.  

Hence, you must lie about more things to support your original lie.  

People seem to think around here lately that lying is a small deal.  The real problems are "inflation" and "torture" and "war".  But those things only live and breathe on this earth due to the architecture of lies that support them.  It isn't institutional "racism" that pulls this country apart it's institutional lying.

What does the Bible call Satan?

The father of violence?
The father of blood?

No, the father of lies.  "Ye shall not die".  The fall of man was based on a lie.  

The way you stop violence and torture and evil in the womb is by exposing lies.  Not by fancy scientific ideas for a utopian society.  But by standing up for truth wherever and whenever you have the opportunity.

----------


## Brett85

Good for Rand. The Confederacy was an abomination and slavery is incompatible with libertarianism.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I am here because I support Ron and Rand Paul. Why are you here?


To commit the treason of truth.  My treason is great and this audience is the best I could find.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Let's get rid of all the flags.  Be iconoclasts

----------


## Wilf

> To commit the treason of truth.  My treason is great and this audience is the best I could find.


Then you enter the wrong place and I think you know why?

----------


## Crashland

> We aren't even talking about the truth of what that flag represents.  We are talking about one thing and one thing only.  The narrative that the confederate flag is a symbol of racist hatred.


If you understand what a symbol IS, then there is no denying that it IS a symbol of racist hatred, among other things including states rights and whatever else you assign to it.




> And we are talking about how the societal purging of that symbol gives credence to the narrative that white people in America are racist.


Or, it gives credence to the narrative that we don't want to display symbols of racism. Yes it could be just that simple. And the sooner that people actually acknowledge that it is a symbol of racism, maybe people will realize why they are giving other people the impression that they are racist, or at the very least apathetic and inconsiderate to a fault.





> By the series of events beginning with Dylann Roof's strategic placement of that flag in his photos (taken by who by the way?)


Yes I am sure the photos were a conspiracy.




> we have gone down this road of validating a racial narrative for societies ills instead of the RON PAUL FORUMS narrative that we are a nation who has abandoned law for corruption, greed, and a way of life based on easy money and foreign oppression.  
> 
> And even worse we have taken this position FOR POLITICAL GAIN.


No, we have taken this position because it is morally the right thing to do. Again, as a poor man's analogy, it's kind of like describing someone else as "gay" and taking zero effort to make clear to everyone that you mean it in the original sense of the word as opposed to the way that most other people interpret it. Why on earth would you do that knowing full well that the message that will be received is not the one you intended to communicate, just because you are narrowly locked into *your* meaning and not thinking about what you are actually conveying to people.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> I think there should be a new flag that solely symbolizes states rights and peace amongst races with an effort to make it go viral.  Then those bitching about the Confederate flag would not be able to use race as an issue in the dialog over states rights.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Then you enter the wrong place and I think you know why?


Nope, drawing a blank.

Enlighten me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Good for Rand. The Confederacy was an abomination and slavery is incompatible with libertarianism.


See, I agree with this, but so is the "North."  Rand's getting up in arms about this while feigning anger at country's that "burn our flag" is immoral inconsistency.  Of course, I know why he's doing it.  There's a part of me that's tempted to just preach repentance and not bother voting at all.

----------


## Origanalist

> Nope, drawing a blank.
> 
> Enlighten me.


Yes, please to inform us Mr. 27 posts since June 2013.

----------


## Wilf

Let me give you a simple clue,if you want to talk about the fact that confederate flag and why it  not talk about it in the Think-Tank section

----------


## Origanalist

I'm not reading this whole thread. I just got home from work a little while ago. I will just say this, I pretty damn disappointed in Rand. I don't care if he means it or not, this was the wrong way to respond.

----------


## Brett85

> See, I agree with this, but so is the "North."  Rand's getting up in arms about this while feigning anger at country's that "burn our flag" is immoral inconsistency.  Of course, I know why he's doing it.  There's a part of me that's tempted to just preach repentance and not bother voting at all.


He wasn't asked about the North.  He was just asked about the South, and his answer was correct.  Slavery is the most abominable thing that has ever occurred in our country, except for abortion which is equally as evil.  There is no possible way for a liberty loving person to defend the Confederacy.

----------


## Origanalist

> Let me give you a simple clue,if you want to talk about the fact that confederate flag and why it  not talk about it in the Think-Tank section


Actually that sounds pretty not simple to me. In fact, I have no idea what you just posted means.

----------


## wizardwatson

> If you understand what a symbol IS, then there is no denying that it IS a symbol of racist hatred, among other things including states rights and whatever else you assign to it.


A mob meme?  Angry people say this flag means this so we should just throw them a bone to make them feel better.

How about instead of telling them we can't control the weather when the crops die we just let them throw a virgin into a volcano.  I mean, we have to be reasonable and keep the peace, am I right?





> Or, it gives credence to the narrative that we don't want to display symbols of racism. Yes it could be just that simple. And the sooner that people actually acknowledge that it is a symbol of racism, maybe people will realize why they are giving other people the impression that they are racist, or at the very least apathetic and inconsiderate to a fault.


"White violence is silence" is racist sentiment.
"White privilege" is racist sentiment.
"Black lives matter" is racist sentiment.

Not capitulating to a racial narrative concerning a historical piece of cloth is not racist sentiment.




> Yes I am sure the photos were a conspiracy.


Well, sarcasm aside, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing was psyop.  It's funny I was thinking of the movie "Cabin in the woods" concerning young Dylann.  If you've seen it you might catch the virgin sacrifice reference above.  Our Satanic leaders can't sacrifice innocent blood so overtly anymore so they have to work harder to do it in order to please the masses.  We're so much more sophisticated these days.  Lot's of planning and ceremony involved in satanic rituals.  Cutting out little girls hearts on a pyramid just doesn't make us feel as good these days as washing ourselves in the blood of Christians.  

Honestly, though my thoughts are more about God's conspiracy to burn this country to the ground if we're going to get all "trippy".  But that isn't this thread.




> No, we have taken this position because it is morally the right thing to do. Again, as a poor man's analogy, it's kind of like describing someone else as "gay" and taking zero effort to make clear to everyone that you mean it in the original sense of the word as opposed to the way that most other people interpret it. Why on earth would you do that knowing full well that the message that will be received is not the one you intended to communicate, just because you are narrowly locked into *your* meaning and not thinking about what you are actually conveying to people.


65% of Mississippi voters chose to keep the confederate flag on their state flag in 2001.  So because they didn't bow down to black racists demands to acknowledge their imagined sufferings they are in the wrong and should repent I suppose by removing it now?

What is morally right is so far from this hate-fest that I wouldn't know where to begin.  

Oh, wait.  Yeah, I do.  Tell the truth.

----------


## Origanalist

> He wasn't asked about the North.  He was just asked about the South, and his answer was correct.  Slavery is the most abominable thing that has ever occurred in our country, except for abortion which is equally as evil.  There is no possible way for a liberty loving person to defend the Confederacy.


Sorry, you can't have it both ways. The stars and stripes are being flown there also.

----------


## phill4paul

> There is no possible way for a liberty loving person to defend the Confederacy.


  I'll give one....

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

----------


## puppetmaster

Anyone see that fast track is getting pushed tbrough.......

----------


## William Tell

> I'll give one....
> 
> "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."


Extremism. How unpatriotic of whoever wrote that...

----------


## Brett85

> Sorry, you can't have it both ways. The stars and stripes are being flown there also.


It's our current flag.  It's not realistic to suggest that our own country's flag not be flown at government buildings.  I see your point theoretically, and I don't personally fly the U.S flag because I have such strong disagreements with our government's policies.  But you can't expect a politician like Rand to come out in favor of removing the U.S flag from government buildings.  That would be absolutely ridiculous.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> "Sniveling coward"
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, all these liberty supporters who want the flag to be taken down, actually read the secession documents and understood that the reason the Southern States seceded was because they were afraid Lincoln was going to take away their slaves.
> 
> I hate that ugly flag and I am not a "sniveling coward," I'm just voicing my honest opinion, which also happens to be the opinion of almost everyone who is not a white Southerner.  Do not accuse people of cowardice for expressing honest opinions.


The flag is a symbol of rebellion and disobedience to tyrants. We need more of those everywhere throughout the country. It's pathetic that you've bought into the propaganda and bull$#@! regarding this issue as well.




> See, I agree with this, but so is the "North." Rand's getting up in arms about this while feigning anger at country's that "burn our flag" is immoral inconsistency. Of course, I know why he's doing it. There's a part of me that's tempted to just preach repentance and not bother voting at all.


It's going to be hard to get jazzed about a candidate who constantly kowtows to every demand of the PC mob, that's for sure.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He wasn't asked about the North.  He was just asked about the South, and his answer was correct.  Slavery is the most abominable thing that has ever occurred in our country, except for abortion which is equally as evil.  There is no possible way for a liberty loving person to defend the Confederacy.


Abortion is worse.  Far worse.  There's no consistent way for a consistent liberty lover to defend the Confederacy OR the United States.  Do you disagree?

----------


## Origanalist

> It's our current flag.  It's not realistic to suggest that our own country's flag not be flown at government buildings.  I see your point theoretically, and I don't personally fly the U.S flag because I have such strong disagreements with our government's policies.  But you can't expect a politician like Rand to come out in favor of removing the U.S flag from government buildings.  That would be absolutely ridiculous.


I hate repeating myself but this is a new thread about this mob mentality knee jerk sheeple infested movement.

The stars and stripes flew over incalculable more evil than the confederate flags ever even imagined.

----------


## Brett85

> Abortion is worse.  Far worse.  There's no consistent way for a consistent liberty lover to defend the Confederacy OR the United States.  Do you disagree?


There's no way for a consistent liberty lover to defend the current U.S federal government.  I still see a distinction between our government and our country.  I think you can still love your country even if you don't love your government.

----------


## Brett85

> The stars and stripes flew over incalculable more evil than the confederate flags ever even imagined.


I just disagree.  I don't think that anything is more evil than slavery.  At best they're equally bad.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's our current flag.  It's not realistic to suggest that our own country's flag not be flown at government buildings.  I see your point theoretically, and I don't personally fly the U.S flag because I have such strong disagreements with our government's policies.  But you can't expect a politician like Rand to come out in favor of removing the U.S flag from government buildings.  That would be absolutely ridiculous.


Then ETHICALLY he should shut up about the CSA because of Matthew 7.  He's being a hypocrite, and he'll be judged by the same standard he judges with.  Frankly, while I'd never fly either flag, given a choice between the two I'd sooner fly the rebel flag.  At least dissent to the status quo rather than endorse it.  

I mean, yes, I get what he's doing and political necessity and so forth, but doesn't this anger your righteous side, TC?  I mean, he's condemning other countries for burning "our flag" and our flag is no better than the CSA flag.  I get political reality but its wrong, and there's a reason Ron never did it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There's no way for a consistent liberty lover to defend the current U.S federal government.  I still see a distinction between our government and our country.  I think you can still love your country even if you don't love your government.


Then why can't a southerner who loves liberty think of the Confederacy as his country and love it even while not loving its government?  I think you're being inconsistent if you don't affirm that.

----------


## Brett85

> Then ETHICALLY he should shut up about the CSA because of Matthew 7.  He's being a hypocrite, and he'll be judged by the same standard he judges with.  Frankly, while I'd never fly either flag, given a choice between the two I'd sooner fly the rebel flag.  At least dissent to the status quo rather than endorse it.  
> 
> I mean, yes, I get what he's doing and political necessity and so forth, but doesn't this anger your righteous side, TC?  I mean, he's condemning other countries for burning "our flag" and our flag is no better than the CSA flag.  I get political reality but its wrong, and there's a reason Ron never did it.


Just because Rand doesn't say things exactly the same way I would say them or the way other people would say them doesn't mean that I'm going to disagree with him.  He's right on the actual issues, which is what's important to me.  He's right when it comes to consistently condemning infringements on human rights and condemning things like slavery, abortion, preemptive war, etc.  He's right that we should eventually end all foreign aid, and in the mean time end foreign aid to the countries where it's more politically popular to do so.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Just because Rand doesn't say things exactly the same way I would say them or the way other people would say them doesn't mean that I'm going to disagree with him.  He's right on the actual issues, which is what's important to me.  He's right when it comes to consistently condemning infringements on human rights and condemning things like slavery, abortion, preemptive war, etc.  He's right that we should eventually end all foreign aid, and in the mean time end foreign aid to the countries where it's more politically popular to do so.


This isn't about exact words.  This is about America taking the log out of its own eye, as a nation.  Americans as a whole have a superiority complex and don't understand just how humbling being in a nation that murders millions of unborn children should be.  We have no business condemning anyone else.  And honestly, this nation needs repentance before politics will even do anything.

----------


## Brett85

> Then why can't a southerner who loves liberty think of the Confederacy as his country and love it even while not loving its government?  I think you're being inconsistent if you don't affirm that.


They might, which is why I don't claim that anyone who thinks highly of the Confederacy is a racist.  I've never made that claim.  But I do think that the majority of African Americans see the Confederate flag as being a symbol of hate and slavery, and I believe that we need to expand the liberty movement and make it friendly to African Americans.  We're going to get absolutely nowhere if the liberty movement is just made up of a few hardcore anti government white men.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Good for Rand. The Confederacy was an abomination and slavery is incompatible with libertarianism.


Is the concept of walking away from a contract you never signed or agreed to an abomination?

----------


## PierzStyx

> Completely agree. The confederate flag was born out of a confederacy that advocated slavery. It is a racist flag and it has no business ever flying on a government building.
> Hats off to Mitt Romney and Rand Paul  on speaking out on this issue.


So was the US flag.

----------


## Crashland

> A mob meme?  Angry people say this flag means this so we should just throw them a bone to make them feel better.
> 
> How about instead of telling them we can't control the weather when the crops die we just let them throw a virgin into a volcano.  I mean, we have to be reasonable and keep the peace, am I right?


The vast majority of the people who see the confederate flag as a symbol of racism are not in an angry mob.





> "White violence is silence" is racist sentiment.
> "White privilege" is racist sentiment.
> "Black lives matter" is racist sentiment.


What does this have to do with the confederate flag?





> Not capitulating to a racial narrative concerning a historical piece of cloth is not racist sentiment.


Never said it was. But it is terribly inconsiderate to display a symbol of racism, and disingenuous to pretend that it isn't one.





> 65% of Mississippi voters chose to keep the confederate flag on their state flag in 2001.  So because they didn't bow down to black racists demands to acknowledge their imagined sufferings they are in the wrong and should repent I suppose by removing it now?


That was their choice. But it isn't only black racists who think the flag should go, and it isn't only black racists who associate the flag with racism and slavery. And it isn't because they fail to understand history.

----------


## Origanalist

> I just disagree.  I don't think that anything is more evil than slavery.  At best they're equally bad.

----------


## Origanalist

> I just disagree.  I don't think that anything is more evil than slavery.  At best they're equally bad.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> They might, which is why I don't claim that anyone who thinks highly of the Confederacy is a racist.  I've never made that claim.  But I do think that the majority of African Americans see the Confederate flag as being a symbol of hate and slavery, and I believe that we need to expand the liberty movement and make it friendly to African Americans.  We're going to get absolutely nowhere if the liberty movement is just made up of a few hardcore anti government white men.


Yeah, I hear you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I just disagree.  I don't think that anything is more evil than slavery.  At best they're equally bad.


The murder of 50 million babies (not to mention anything else) isn't WORSE than slavery?

----------


## William Tell

> I just disagree.  I don't think that anything is more evil than slavery.  At best they're equally bad.



*The U.S Flag flew over slavery.* 

*The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 

The U.S Flag flew over slavery. 
*

----------


## Brett85

> Is the concept of walking away from a contract you never signed or agreed to an abomination?


It seems like the issue of whether the states can secede from the union is somewhat of a separate issue.  Theoretically you can take the position that the southern states had the right to secede but at the same time recognize that they weren't in any way "pro liberty" and engaged in awful human rights abuses.

----------


## Origanalist

> The vast majority of the people who see the confederate flag as a symbol of racism are not in an angry mob.


Bull$#@!, I'm waiting for the first killing over this. It looks like dip$#@! might get his wish.

----------


## Brett85

> The murder of 50 million babies (not to mention anything else) isn't WORSE than slavery?


It's like the difference between putting an innocent person in prison for life and killing an innocent person.  A slave in the south was basically just in prison for life.  They had no rights and no freedoms.  Is that really any better than death?  It doesn't seem like it.  Also, many slaves died because of abuse and poor living conditions.

----------


## cindy25

why is it a symbol of bondage today, and wasn't in the 1980s and 1990s? I could understand if it had been taken down in 1865, or even in the 1960s.   but all this just seems stupid.

----------


## Lightweis

> So was the US flag.


I do not support the american flag either. I do not have any flags at my house.

----------


## philipped

> The flag is only a symbol of slavery to the ignorant, who are unaware of the true causes and meaning of the war. 
> 
> That said, I would be extremely annoyed with Rand if he publicly agreed with me.
> 
> ...no faster way to sink a campaign (since most voters _are_ ignorant about the war and _do_ wrongly see it as a symbol of slavery).
> 
> So, I'm fine with this.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to r3volution 3.0 again. Thank you for understanding atleast that part of it.

----------


## Crashland

> Bull$#@!, I'm waiting for the first killing over this. It looks like dip$#@! might get his wish.


Me: "The vast majority of the people who see the confederate flag as a symbol of racism are not in an angry mob."
You: "BS! There will be at least some killings because of this by angry people who see the confederate flag as a symbol of racism"

(facepalm)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's like the difference between putting an innocent person in prison for life and killing an innocent person.  A slave in the south was basically just in prison for life.  They had no rights and no freedoms.  Is that really any better than death?  It doesn't seem like it.  Also, many slaves died because of abuse and poor living conditions.


Meh... this depended on the slave.  Not saying it was right in any instance, but some were treated better than others.  Plus, abortion had more victims.

----------


## Origanalist

> Me: "The vast majority of the people who see the confederate flag as a symbol of racism are not in an angry mob."
> You: "BS! There will be at least some killings because of this by angry people who see the confederate flag as a symbol of racism"
> 
> (facepalm)


Facepalm all you want, it might knock some sense into you. Here, try one of these;

----------


## Carlybee

> .      In 1703, more than 42 percent of New York City households held slaves, the second-highest proportion of any city in the colonies after Charleston, South Carolina. But slaves were also used as agricultural workers in farm communities, including in areas of New York and Long Island, Connecticut and New Jersey.


.

//

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Meh... this depended on the slave.  Not saying it was right in any instance, but some were treated better than others.  Plus, abortion had more victims.


I've read that line from neoconfederates and it never sat well with me.  That is why I am not a defender of the South anymore.  Always always always relate the chattel slavery of the South to the political slavery of statism.  It doesn't matter how '"good" our masters treat us if we are still slaves.

----------


## philipped

> Facepalm all you want, it might knock some sense into you. Here, try one of these;


You're hyped. I'm not a #BlackLivesMatter b0t but I'm gonna be honest in saying for the sake of Rand's campaign with donating the $1,750 he got from the guy and taking this position were the right things to say/do.

----------


## Crashland

> why is it a symbol of bondage today, and wasn't in the 1980s and 1990s? I could understand if it had been taken down in 1865, or even in the 1960s.   but all this just seems stupid.


It wasn't? It has been used as a symbol opposing black civil rights for a long time.

----------


## Crashland

> Facepalm all you want, it might knock some sense into you. Here, try one of these;




Yes that might help. It is sometimes physically painful for me anyway when I see logical flaws
"The vast majority of people aren't murderers."
"I call BS! Just you wait, there will be some murders"
...

----------


## wizardwatson

> You're hyped. I'm not a #BlackLivesMatter b0t but I'm gonna be honest in saying for the sake of Rand's campaign with donating the $1,750 he got from the guy and taking this position were the right things to say/do.


Yes, "for the sake of Rand's campaign", which is to say to gain political power I suppose it was the "right" thing to do, if by "right" you mean an expedient method to achieve power over your fellow man.

But on the flip side lying also puts you in the danger of hell fire.

----------


## twomp

The South Carolina flag must be the most powerful force in the world. It has the power end racism AND the power to destroy entire heritages! I hope whoever finds a way to harness its almighty power uses it wisely. It can either SAVE the world or DESTROY it!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've read that line from neoconfederates and it never sat well with me.  That is why I am not a defender of the South anymore.  Always always always relate the chattel slavery of the South to the political slavery of statism.  It doesn't matter how '"good" our masters treat us if we are still slaves.


I'm in agreement with you.  But note that I was SPECIFICALLY comparing the evil of slavery to the evil of abortion.  I'm not defending the south at all. I support burning the confederate flag right next to a burning US flag.

----------


## Origanalist

> You're hyped. I'm not a #BlackLivesMatter b0t but I'm gonna be honest in saying for the sake of Rand's campaign with donating the $1,750 he got from the guy and taking this position were the right things to say/do.


It's true. Iv'e been completely and totally disgusted since reading the posts these self righteous lemmings posted on twitter the last couple days.

----------


## wizardwatson

> The South Carolina flag must be the most powerful force in the world. It has the power end racism AND the power to destroy entire heritages! I hope whoever finds a way to harness its almighty power uses it wisely. It can either SAVE the world or DESTROY it!


Well, it's the whole narrative that's going on that is the power.  That symbol has just brought it to the surface.

But you do bring up a good point.  

I was thinking to myself earlier that this is the kind of thing that makes the rest of the world WISH that America would curl up and die.

We have everything, own everything, sit on our fat asses, experience no real oppression, while much of the world is dealing with the pointy end of our cruelty on a daily basis.  We $#@! on everyone and everything and claim to be morally superior, intellectually superior, and spiritually superior beings.  

THIS situation is yet another fine example of why the world hates us.

----------


## Origanalist

> Yes that might help. It is sometimes physically painful for me anyway when I see logical flaws
> "The vast majority of people aren't murderers."
> "I call BS! Just you wait, there will be some murders"
> ...


No, your right. Most of them are pussies like christian liberty and want somebody else to do it for them.

----------


## William Tell

For those of you who don't have a real problem with the U.S flag, but do have a problem with the Confederate. I would like to hear of 1 thing, just 1 thing objectionable the Confederate flag flew over that the Union flag didn't.

----------


## wizardwatson

This video is currently all over the twitter feeds.  

SC Legislator is "blaming the victims".  That is the narrative.  The offensive "racist" comment that "criticizes" the victims is around 1:20 to 1:50.




All Chumley was saying was that he hated the fact that those 9 people didn't bum-rush the bastard when he was reloading or something.  He was MAD, visibly, that they just sat there and let themselves be offed.

Now even as a Christian, I would say if one of them did such a thing they certainly are within their rights because they would likely be saving someone.  This is a lifeboat scenario, the Christian physics get complicated.

Now this sentiment is PRECISELY what this #wewillshootback rhetoric is based on.  But when Chumley says "just get him" he still is a racist.  He's blaming those poor pacifist Christians for being pacifist.

It's important to see this fascism for what it is.  If you say be strong, you're calling us weak.  If you say calm down, you're speaking from white privilege.  There is no right way to answer any of these questions.  The only right answer is to worship at the feet of hatred.  Join us in hating or get the $#@! out.

It's sophisticated Orwellian double-speak.

----------


## Rudeman

All this flag talk and now I want to watch a Civil War documentary. Any opinions on the Ken Burns mini-series?

----------


## Carlybee



----------


## chronicaust

I'm from Alabama, so I'm obviously biased. But I really don't see the the big deal on the concept of the Confederate flag. I usually only see it worn or flown by ignorant rednecks here anyway. People with huge, loud trucks that leave a black cloud in it's wake. 

However even being in (arguably) one of the most racist states in the country, I've never known anyone to wear it for any reason besides a protest to big brother. It's one of those "you can take my guns from my cold dead hands" things. 

Now the fact it's on a public building is a completely different scenario. Regardless of meaning, they should take it down (at least temporarily) out of respect for the families that lost someone that day. That's the primary reason they should take it down. When tragedies like this happen, we as a people should lay down our politics and show some respect for people's pain and suffering. Not fly the flag and draw more unneeded attention to the victims. I'm sure the last thing they want right now is to be hearing about this on TV.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I'm from Alabama, so I'm obviously biased. But I really don't see the the big deal on the concept of the Confederate flag. I usually only see it worn or flown by ignorant rednecks here anyway. People with huge, loud trucks that leave a black cloud in it's wake. 
> 
> However even being in (arguably) one of the most racist states in the country, I've never known anyone to wear it for any reason besides a protest to big brother. It's one of those "you can take my guns from my cold dead hands" things. 
> 
> Now the fact it's on a public building is a completely different scenario. Regardless of meaning, they should take it down (at least temporarily) out of respect for the families that lost someone that day. That's the primary reason they should take it down. When tragedies like this happen, we as a people should lay down our politics and show some respect for people's pain and suffering. Not fly the flag and draw more unneeded attention to the victims. I'm sure the last thing they want right now is to be hearing about this on TV.


You know.  There's this thing called the bible.  And 90%+ of what I see is ignorant asses from all over the world lying about it, using it to justify their hatred, etc. etc. etc.  

Someday, probably sooner than you all think, they are going to come after that as well.  

I mean the Catholic church, yada yada yada.  I mean what's more hateful than this God who drowned everyone on Earth except 8 people.  Made his followers chop part of their dicks off and threatens anyone who doesn't obey with hell fire?

That $#@! has got to go, am I right?

Cuz at a certain point, you have to understand people's feelings are involved.

----------


## chronicaust

> You know.  There's this thing called the bible.  And 90%+ of what I see is ignorant asses from all over the world lying about it, using it to justify their hatred, etc. etc. etc.  
> 
> Someday, probably sooner than you all think, they are going to come after that as well.  
> 
> I mean the Catholic church, yada yada yada.  I mean what's more hateful than this God who drowned everyone on Earth except 8 people.  Made his followers chop part of their dicks off and threatens anyone who doesn't obey with hell fire?
> 
> That $#@! has got to go, am I right?
> 
> Cuz at a certain point, you have to understand people's feelings are involved.


I hate when people mix religion and politics. There should be zero involvement of government and religion, except for protecting the rights of people to practice how they want (assuming their rights don't infringe on another's).

I'm not saying everyone should denounce the flag as a whole. I'm saying that government shouldn't involve itself in such matters. People should fly whatever flag they please. But if it's causing the victims of this tragedy more pain and suffering, just take it down for a month out of respect. That's not stopping anyone from doing anything. It's called being neutral, and government should always be neutral in these matters.

When they try to ban the flag, it's game on mfers.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I hate when people mix religion and politics. There should be zero involvement of government and religion, except for protecting the rights of people to practice how they want (assuming their rights don't infringe on another's).
> 
> I'm not saying everyone should denounce the flag as a whole. I'm saying that government shouldn't involve itself in such matters. People should fly whatever flag they please. But if it's causing the victims of this tragedy more pain and suffering, just take it down for a month out of respect. That's not stopping anyone from doing anything. It's called being neutral, and government should always be neutral in these matters.
> 
> When they try to ban the flag, it's game on mfers.


I agree from the perspective of the government that there's no political principle that has to be sacrificed to remove that flag from state property by legislative action.  But the fact is that the movement is assembled to fulfill the spirit of your last sentence.  The constituents for the ban are assembling.  We will see if they get appeased or not.  

I'm not standing up for the flag or the people of SC.  I'm just standing in front of the hate group saying you're wrong.

It seems like everyone else is like, "Well, they feel bad. Lot's of people feel bad, it's a messed up world. What's the big deal, just let them take it down.  It isn't hurting anything."  

Child porn animation isn't hurting anything either.  That doesn't mean we legalize it.

You don't feed hate because just because it's free and it's too much trouble to correct it.  It just gets stronger.

----------


## TheTexan

> The Confederacy was about slavery.


Indeed.  It's a good thing Lincoln conquered the people of those states and forced them back into the Republic against their will, or its possible we would still have slavery today.

Thanks to Lincoln though, we are free of slavery, no slavery here!

----------


## wizardwatson

> Indeed.  It's a good thing Lincoln conquered the people of those states and forced them back into the Republic against their will, or its possible we would still have slavery today.


Lincoln also a slave.  Assassinated after he did his slave job.




> "*The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity.* The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the *bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.* [As a most undesirable consequence of the war...] Corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed." —Abraham Lincoln


The real slavers have only grown in power.

----------


## chronicaust

> But the fact is that the movement is assembled to fulfill the spirit of your last sentence.  The constituents for the ban are assembling.  We will see if they get appeased or not.  
> 
> I'm not standing up for the flag or the people of SC.  I'm just standing in front of the hate group saying you're wrong.


And if/when they do, I would be willing to bet that'll be the day the South goes back to war. I would gladly fight for people's right to free speech. Wouldn't you? They will have to shoot me down with the whole world watching to make me give up my right to fly that flag. **** that **** (if you know what I mean).

----------


## wizardwatson

> And if/when they do, I would be willing to bet that'll be the day the South goes back to war. I would gladly fight for people's right to free speech. Wouldn't you? They will have to shoot me down with the whole world watching to make me give up my right to fly that flag. **** that **** (if you know what I mean).


There is no "South".  Social networks like this are about as close as we get.  And we are hilariously outgunned.  We are basting in a soup of NSA matrix cables.  When the final solution happens you will be lucky to get a seat without blood on it in the cattle truck on the way to your FEMA camp.

But my hope is in the Lord.  He said he would send the Two Witnesses before Satan rules to guide us.  That's literally the only hope I have left at this point.  We aren't going to get our $#@! together on our own clearly.  I only hope he makes his move soon.

----------


## Carlybee

Well one good thing. I've forgotten what were all butthurt about last week.

----------


## chronicaust

And just because "slavery" ended in the 1860s doesn't mean it didn't still exist by another name for many years under many presidents (including Lincoln). It doesn't change the fact that even today, blacks are second-class citizens when you consider things like the war on drugs. These should be the things we are debating, equality, not racism, under the law.

----------


## orenbus

Not sure if this was posted already don't have the time right now to go through 300 posts, but Jack Hunter was on MSNBC and CNN today discussing his previous support for the Conf. Flag and his changed views.

MSNBC Interview:
http://www.snappytv.com/snaps/the-so...c-hd_q1/171523

CNN Interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_uwjSiNJlU

----------


## chronicaust

> There is no "South".  Social networks like this are about as close as we get.  And we are hilariously outgunned.  We are basting in a soup of NSA matrix cables.  When the final solution happens you will be lucky to get a seat without blood on it in the cattle truck on the way to your FEMA camp.
> 
> But my hope is in the Lord.  He said he would send the Two Witnesses before Satan rules to guide us.  That's literally the only hope I have left at this point.  We aren't going to get our $#@! together on our own clearly.  I only hope he makes his move soon.


They can do what they want to me, but they won't take my rights without taking me out first. The South was at a disadvantage then too, but that didn't stop them from standing up against what they believed was an oppressive government. 

Those of you that say the Civil War was just about slavery trust your government way too much. The Civil War began because Lincoln won the election without a single delegate from a Southern state. Do a Google image search for "election of 1860". It was also because of states rights and resistance to the Federal Government's ever growing hunger for control.

----------


## twomp

The South Carolina flag only means what the media tells you sheep that it means. A week ago you weren't arguing about it and a week from now you won't be arguing about it. That is because the media will have moved on to something else and you sheep move along with it. You want proof about my statement? Show me the threads about the South Carolina flag a week ago. You all act like you care so much but all you are doing is being an echo in the MSM echo chamber. Be proud sheep! BAAAAAA!!

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It's like the difference between putting an innocent person in prison for life and killing an innocent person.  A slave in the south was basically just in prison for life.  They had no rights and no freedoms.  *Is that really any better than death?  It doesn't seem like it.*  Also, many slaves died because of abuse and poor living conditions.


How do you imagine your question would be answered by those slaves (of any time or place) who ended up being freed and who then went on to have free children and families and lives that held some measure of joy and satisfaction - things they would never have had if they had just been killed.

Then ask yourself the same thing about innocent people who are wrongly convicted of capital crimes, but who end up being freed after having been sentenced to life in prison, rather than having been executed.

Whether you are a slave or a wrongly-imprisoned innocent, your condition is NOT final, and there is at least some hope (however large or small it may be) that your situation might one day be ameliorated (by escape, manumission, pardon, etc.). Death IS final, however, and it does NOT hold any such hope.

It amazes me that people are actually able to say, "Slaves and life-prisoners are no better off than if they were dead."

That is NOT a judgement that can rightfully be made by anyone _except_ the slaves and life-prisoners themselves ...




> Meh... this depended on the slave.  Not saying it was right in any instance, but some were treated better than others.  Plus, abortion had more victims.


This is strange, given that you have suggested elsewhere that an innocent man freed after 39 years in prison was no better off than if he had just been put to death - or at least not sufficiently better off to make any difference. Why, then, should you think any differently with respect to slaves?

----------


## Occam's Banana

* >> (**+**) x 10googol*

----------


## otherone

> The South Carolina flag only means what the media tells you sheep that it means. A week ago you weren't arguing about it and a week from now you won't be arguing about it. That is because the media will have moved on to something else and you sheep move along with it. You want proof about my statement? Show me the threads about the South Carolina flag a week ago. You all act like you care so much but all you are doing is being an echo in the MSM echo chamber. Be proud sheep! BAAAAAA!!


MEASLES!

----------


## Crashland

> They can do what they want to me, but they won't take my rights without taking me out first. The South was at a disadvantage then too, but that didn't stop them from standing up against what they believed was an oppressive government. 
> 
> Those of you that say the Civil War was just about slavery trust your government way too much. The Civil War began because Lincoln won the election without a single delegate from a Southern state. Do a Google image search for "election of 1860". It was also because of states rights and resistance to the Federal Government's ever growing hunger for control.


Yes good job! And remind me, what political position did Lincoln and the Republicans have that the South found so objectionable that he received not a single delegate from them? You know, the political issue that was specifically mentioned in South Carolina's declaration of secession?

----------


## mit26chell

Dying laughing that there are people in here saying they'd go to war over some old raggedy piece of cloth that hate groups use as their symbol. You do that.... You do you.

----------


## 65fastback2+2

> Indeed.  It's a good thing Lincoln conquered the people of those states and forced them back into the Republic against their will, or its possible we would still have slavery today.
> 
> Thanks to Lincoln though, we are free of slavery, no slavery here!


"“I would save the Union. … If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it"

----------


## 65fastback2+2

> Dying laughing that there are people in here saying they'd go to war over some old raggedy piece of cloth that hate groups use as their symbol. You do that.... You do you.


Interestingly enough, the founders predicted that, even before the constitution, that there would come a civil war over it...and it happened.

is it really too far fetched to say that the exact same cause exists today and could drive people to the same conclusion? hardly.

----------


## 65fastback2+2

> Yes good job! And remind me, what political position did Lincoln and the Republicans have that the South found so objectionable that he received not a single delegate from them? You know, the political issue that was specifically mentioned in South Carolina's declaration of secession?


"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union"

Seems like the issue specifically mentioned is "violations of the Constitution" and "encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States"...

----------


## chronicaust

"First they came for the rebels, and I did not speak out, because I was not a rebel...

...Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> At least one of the liberty-friendly political figures out there isn't a sniveling coward. From MS State Senator Chris McDaniel's Facebook account:
> 
> "SENATOR CHRIS MCDANIEL RELEASES STATEMENT REGARDING MISSISSIPPI'S STATE FLAG
> June 23, 2015. (Laurel, MS.) - Senator Chris McDaniel today released the following statement regarding calls to do away with Mississippi's official state flag.
> "The price we pay to live in a free society is to occasionally be offended. A cultural or historical cleansing of all things potentially offensive will do nothing to alleviate the problems caused by racism. To pretend otherwise is a disservice to serious discourse on the subject.
> We must examine our hearts and not resort to placing emotional blame for problems we face on symbols such as a flag.
> I love all Mississippians, regardless of race or political affiliation. We are a family. But I disagree with those who use political correctness to silence differing viewpoints. I likewise believe it is in poor taste to use the tragic South Carolina massacre to promote a political agenda.
> I understand, very well, both sides of the debate. Slavery is our nation's original sin, and government sanctioned discrimination is evil. As a strong proponent of individual rights, I will always defend individuals against the abuses of government and fight for liberty by insisting government's reach remain limited.
> However, at the end of the day, political correctness is about power; consequently, its practitioners will never be appeased.
> ...


Thank you Chris Mcdaniel...  I supported him during his campaign against the crook Cochran and I would support him again.  I drove my "Ron Paul Liberty Corvette" to several of his rallies and he loves the car and the man.  Instead of getting this liberty minded man in the senate we wound up with the crook Cochran stealing the election by buying democrat votes at $15 each so that for the first time ever a republican primary was swayed by the democratic party.  It is a shame that such criminals are allowed to walk among us much less to be allowed to make decisions that affect us daily.  What a mess we are in!

----------


## wizardwatson

> Dying laughing that there are people in here saying they'd go to war over some old raggedy piece of cloth that hate groups use as their symbol. You do that.... You do you.


I know right!

Guess, who else is a hate group according to the SPLC?




> Westboro Baptist Church (WBC)* is arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America.* The group is basically a family-based cult of personality built around its patriarch, Fred Phelps. Typified by its slogan, “God Hates ****,” WBC is known for its harsh anti-gay beliefs and the crude signs its members carry at their frequent protests.


http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...baptist-church

You don't have to actually do anything violent or criminal to be a hate group.  You just have to "hurt people's feelings" or condemn a behavior that people like to do.

So I guess since Westboro Baptist Church is "arguably the most obnoxious and rabid" hate group in America, clearly their symbol has got to go:

----------


## fisharmor

> I hate when people mix religion and politics. There should be zero involvement of government and religion,


It is no coincidence that the first states in history were ruled by men who also claimed to be gods. it is also no coincidence that today, our school children are compelled to say a prayer every morning to the state.

Politics IS religion.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> He wasn't asked about the North.  He was just asked about the South, and his answer was correct.  Slavery is the most abominable thing that has ever occurred in our country, except for abortion which is equally as evil.  There is no possible way for a liberty loving person to defend the Confederacy.


No, not if you think the war was about slavery.  I too feel slavery is one of the worst abominations on God's green earth but of course slavery persisted in the north after the civil war when it was abolished in the south.  Check your history books (you have to read the fine print).  That said, I don't want ANY fiction "government" whether it's Union or Confederate, but one needs to understand the true dynamics of that war in order to "not be fooled again"...

----------


## fisharmor

> All this flag talk and now I want to watch a Civil War documentary. Any opinions on the Ken Burns mini-series?


Ken Burns is a state mouthpiece who writes documentaries for the state mouthpiece TV channel. his work very artfully conveys the official state opinion. but a catchy folk tune does not equal real history.

----------


## chronicaust

> It is no coincidence that the first states in history were ruled by men who also claimed to be gods. it is also no coincidence that today, our school children are compelled to say a prayer every morning to the state.
> 
> Politics IS religion.


So true.

----------


## kahless

Mitch McConnell to Kentucky Capitol: Lose the Jefferson Davis Statue 
http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...tatue-20150623

Come next will be to rename all military bases that were named after Confederate generals.  Give it enough time of the spineless cuckold white politicians backing down and they will be going after the slave owning founding fathers.  Expect anything named after any of them, schools, roads, statues or monuments to be replaced with their  establishments Progressive heroes.  

Just insert in it's place Barack Obama, Martin Luther King, black heroes from the slave era, Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson for CRA, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama.

This is not about righting wrongs from the past and equality.  This is about supremacy of minorities over whites and vile hatred that the self hating whites, minorities groups and the militant gay establishment has for individual liberty, white culture, patriarchy and traditional Christian values.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Yes good job! And remind me, what political position did Lincoln and the Republicans have that the South found so objectionable that he received not a single delegate from them? You know, the political issue that was specifically mentioned in South Carolina's declaration of secession?


Lincoln got none of those delegates due to the Morrill tariff and other fees that essentially doubled the taxation of the south. 




> Jefferson Davis proclaimed here that the economy of the Confederacy would be based on free trade. Indeed, the Confederate Constitution of 1861 outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether, and only allowed for a modest "revenue tariff." 
> 
> When Davis spoke of a "passion or the lust for dominion," he was referring to the constant attempts, for some seventy years, of the Northern Whig and Republican parties to plunder the South with the instrument of protectionist tariffs, as was attempted with the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. In other words, he declared here that, in his opinion, Lincoln was deadly serious (pun intended) about enforcing the newly-doubled rate of federal tariff taxation with a military invasion of the Southern states, and was preparing for war as a result... 
> 
> Before the war, Northern newspapers associated with the Republican Party were editorializing in favor of naval bombardments of the Southern ports because they knew that the South was adopting free trade, while the North was moving in the direction of a 50% average tariff rate (which did in fact exist, more or less, from 1863 to 1913, when the federal income tax was adopted). These Republican party propagandists correctly understood that much of the trade of the world would enter the U.S. through Southern ports under such a scenario. Rather than adopting reasonable tariff rates themselves, they agitated for war on the South.
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/01/...the-civil-war/

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> and in 1703, more than 42 percent of New York City households held slaves


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...

----------


## hells_unicorn

I've generally resigned myself to a position of bored cynicism over this issue, mostly because I know that my viewpoints on this when spoken in most quarters (this excludes most of the people on RPF, just to be clear) will be subject solely to the judgment of self-righteous morons. The confederate flag was a war emblem, and the matter was over taxation and tyranny, not slavery. Southern plantation owners were worried about losing their slaves to Northern Abolitionists, but Lincoln's government couldn't have cared less about such things, let alone the manufacturing and industrial tycoons who bankrolled Lincoln's presidency, unless it served their economic interests, which it didn't until it looked like Lincoln would lose re-election in 1864.

People who believe that the confederate flag is a symbol for slavery are brainwashed, largely by post-19th century Marxists who have been trying to foment civil unrest between different races in America for the purposes of destabilizing the country (Trotsky's brainchild with some help from the Frankfurt School). That so-called Methodist Church in South Carolina, if it ever was Christian, is sounding more and more like a Marxist front than anything else given the way their clergy has been talking lately. The kid who shot up that church was a certified lunatic with a personal pharmacy of psychotropic drugs, which still seems to be informing his bizarre demeanor, so connecting him to the confederate flag seems cynically opportunistic, and I can't very well condone such nonsense, though I understand its inevitability and am electing not to kick against it violently.

This is just more stupid people thinking they can make the world better of their own accord, and they will fail each and every time they attempt to do so. Anyone who is interested in the truth can begin with Thomas DiLorenzo's lectures on the economic divide between North and South just prior to the Civil War to get an idea of what was really going on. I have no cultural or historical ties to the Confederacy, my family was always north of the dividing line, and I have zero respect whatsoever with the so-called "union" that has come to be thanks to Lincoln and his totalitarian ideas.




> It is no coincidence that the first states in history were ruled by men who also claimed to be gods. it is also no coincidence that today, our school children are compelled to say a prayer every morning to the state.
> 
> Politics IS religion.


http://classroom.synonym.com/respons...amia-5252.html
http://www.ancient.eu/Mesopotamia/

Mesopotamia predates Egypt by a couple centuries, you might want to crack open a history book before spouting nonsense like this. And spare me any stupid atheistkult equivocations between being a "divine agent" versus being "a god", the two are quite different to those who don't subscribe to fanatical post-Enlightenment materialism.

Also, a simple reading of 20th century history debunks this crap about religion being the root of statism, unless you wish to argue that the Bolsheviks and their allies from Eastern Europe to China were libertarian.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> 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...


The statistic has many sources, whether noted by Wikipedia or not, based on a Google search of the phrase "42 percent of New York City households held slaves":




> But population records show that many of the captive immigrants ended up in New York. By 1703, 42 percent of New York households included slaves. Among cities in Colonial America, only Charleston, S.C., had a higher proportion, but part of the point of the exhibit is to show that New York was not unique among Northern cities.
> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...tions-new-york





> By 1664, when the English drove out the Dutch, the newly renamed colony of New York had 800 slaves, more than all of Virginia. By 1705, 42 percent of city households held slaves, and though the numbers fluctuated throughout the nineteenth century, at certain times up to 20 percent of the city’s population was enslaved.
> http://weblog.liberatormagazine.com/...-new-york.html





> Now another blue-blooded institution--the New-York Historical Society--has joined this important public engagement with our past by mounting an ambitious exhibition, "Slavery in New York." To all those who think slavery was a "Southern thing," think again. In 1703, 42 percent of New York's households had slaves, much more than Philadelphia and Boston combined. Among the colonies' cities, only Charleston, South Carolina, had more.
> http://www.thenation.com/article/hid...avery-new-york

----------


## fisharmor

> http://classroom.synonym.com/respons...amia-5252.html
> http://www.ancient.eu/Mesopotamia/
> 
> Mesopotamia predates Egypt by a couple centuries, you might want to crack open a history book before spouting nonsense like this. And spare me any stupid atheistkult equivocations between being a "divine agent" versus being "a god", the two are quite different to those who don't subscribe to fanatical post-Enlightenment materialism.
> 
> Also, a simple reading of 20th century history debunks this crap about religion being the root of statism, unless you wish to argue that the Bolsheviks and their allies from Eastern Europe to China were libertarian.


What reason do you have to be hostile toward me personally?  Do you realize that your links corroborate the idea I was conveying?

It seems like you think I'm attacking religion as an extension of the state (or vice versa).  This is the farthest thing from the case.  I am attacking the state as a competing religion, which either directly supplants an existing religion (as you insinuated by bringing up the Bolsheviks) or dilutes an existing religion to the point of it not bearing a whole lot of resemblance to how it actually reads (for example, Christianity in the US today).

I take it as axiomatic that doctrine dictates practice, and that practice also reflects doctrine.
You cannot bury dead soldiers using a state funeral without taking a very specific eschatological stand.  Regardless of the "religion" of that soldier or his family, the mere existence and use of that ceremony dictates that those participating believe that what brought meaning to that man's life is that he was a servant of the state.  What happens to that man's soul immediately becomes moot when that ceremony is allowed to happen: what matters is suddenly what he was, not what he is.  If you see a "priest" from a competing "religion" participating in this ceremony, it is a practical guarantee you will not hear him preach the Gospel, because it becomes subservient to that soldier's service.  And this where the Gospel is most needed!

You cannot compel children to recite a prayer to a flag every morning and not assume the trappings of religion.  You cannot compel an entire stadium full of sportsfans to sing a hymn prior to the commencement of their entertainment and not assume the trappings of religion.  And as soon as you do that, just as with the funeral, you elbow out something else.

Tying it back to the OP, this is one reason why I do not condone removal of the Confederate battle flag.  I don't think it's a coincidence that southerners are known for living in the "Bible belt".  It is a geography where the state religion is weakened by a competing state religion, and this allows real religion to seep in.

And to address your rebuttal, you might have known all of this if you asked for clarification, instead of just assuming what I know and what I believe and insinuating that I can't read.

----------


## AuH20

> Mitch McConnell to Kentucky Capitol: Lose the Jefferson Davis Statue 
> http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...tatue-20150623
> 
> Come next will be to rename all military bases that were named after Confederate generals.  Give it enough time of the spineless cuckold white politicians backing down and they will be going after the slave owning founding fathers.  Expect anything named after any of them, schools, roads, statues or monuments to be replaced with their  establishments Progressive heroes.  
> 
> Just insert in it's place Barack Obama, Martin Luther King, black heroes from the slave era, Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson for CRA, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama.
> 
> This is not about righting wrongs from the past and equality.  This is about supremacy of minorities over whites and vile hatred that the self hating whites, minorities groups and the militant gay establishment has for individual liberty, white culture, patriarchy and traditional Christian values.


I don't even blame the minority groups. They are doing what comes natural in terms of expanding power in a foreign land. It's the progressive, statist whites that need to be  bashed over the head repeatedly. They are the terminal cancer in this country who have fomented so much division and hate for many decades. White progressive baby boomers who run major corporations and institutions need to be forcibly removed before they kill us all. We all see them on the television every day with their forked tongues.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I don't even blame the minority groups. They are doing what comes natural in terms of expanding power in a foreign land. It's the progressive, statist whites that need to be  bashed over the head repeatedly. They are the terminal cancer in this country who foment so much division and hate. White progressive baby boomers who run major corporations and institutions need to be forcibly removed before they kill us all. We all see them on the television every day with their forked tongues.


So you're saying there's a movement of statists or "nationalists" that are fomenting the division that actually promotes the socialists?  

So there's kind of a Nationalist Socialist movement that is coming to a head.  Hmmmm... where have I heard that before.

Nationalist Socialist...Nationalist Socialist...Nationalist Socialist...

God!  It just sounds so familiar.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So you're saying there's a movement of statists or "nationalists" that are fomenting the division that actually promotes the socialists? 
> 
> So there's kind of a Nationalist Socialist movement that is coming to a head. Hmmmm... where have I heard that before.
> 
> Nationalist Socialist...Nationalist Socialist...Nationalist Socialist...
> 
> God! It just sounds so familiar.


http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/Ji...(Feb_2009).pdf

----------


## AuH20

> So you're saying there's a movement of statists or "nationalists" that are fomenting the division that actually promotes the socialists?  
> 
> So there's kind of a Nationalist Socialist movement that is coming to a head.  Hmmmm... where have I heard that before.
> 
> Nationalist Socialist...Nationalist Socialist...Nationalist Socialist...
> 
> God!  It just sounds so familiar.


The same people who set up our banking system and educational directives. White as sheets. Horace Mann and John Dewey who were responsible for the creation of the NEA.

A great book on the matter I might add:

http://www.amazon.com/NEA-Trojan-Hor.../dp/0941995070

----------


## Carlybee

San Antonio now wants to ban the confederate flag and rename a school named for Robert E.Lee. Houston already made schools with names offensive to native Americans change their mascots, I'm sure Robert E. Lee high school will be next on the chopping block.

----------


## phill4paul

> San Antonio now wants to ban the confederate flag and rename a school named for Robert E.Lee. Houston already made schools with names offensive to native Americans change their mascots, I'm sure Robert E. Lee high school will be next on the chopping block.


  The Citadel just removed the Confederate Naval Jack.

----------


## AuH20

> San Antonio now wants to ban the confederate flag and rename a school named for Robert E.Lee. Houston already made schools with names offensive to native Americans change their mascots, I'm sure Robert E. Lee high school will be next on the chopping block.



The Jefferson discussion is under way. Maybe they can bulldoze down Monticello and turn it into a recycling center.

----------


## Vanguard101

Ahahaha the Neo-cons continue to downvote me. As if that makes your defense for the confederacy any better LOL

----------


## wizardwatson

> The same people who set up our banking system and educational directives. White as sheets. Horace Mann and John Dewey who were responsible for the creation of the NEA.
> 
> A great book on the matter I might add:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/NEA-Trojan-Hor.../dp/0941995070


You mean a Nazi is a Nazi even if they aren't wearing a uniform?!

This is quite disturbing.  What if some of them are still alive and at this very moment planning another nationalist socialist uprising?

They've had a lot of time to think.  They might change their tactics to fool people.  They were a wily bunch then, 70 years is a lot of time to refine the art.

----------


## AuH20

Lee Bright on the coming purge...........

http://www.businessinsider.com/ted-c...t-purge-2015-6




> Bright made his comment when he was asked about Haley's move by the Charleston Post and Courier. He elaborated on it in an interview with Politico that was published Tuesday.
> 
> *"It’s not just the flag," Bright said. "They want to take down the Confederate monuments, I’ve gotten emails from people who want to rename streets … anytime you want to basically remove the symbols of history from a state, that’s something that just is very bad … these are honorable men who fought for their homes, their home state, to disgrace them in the name of political correctness is just wrong. They’re not here to defend themselves."
> *
> Bright told Politico the Cruz campaign had not discussed the issue with him, but he said he hoped presidential candidates would not tell South Carolina how to handle the issue. 
> 
> "I would encourage presidential candidates to let us deal with this," Bright said. "It’s deeply rooted history for a lot of us. I’m not going to stand by and let our ancestors’ memories be besmirched. It’s one thing to just take down the flag. They want us to concede that the soldiers that fell for the Confederacy were a bunch of racists and I’m not going to concede that."
> 
> Tyler, the Cruz campaign spokesman, said the senator agrees with the notion the issue should be decided by people in South Carolina.
> ...

----------


## Chieppa1

Looks like Tom Woods has some beef with Jack Hunter changing his tune about the flag. On his FB.

----------


## AuH20

> Looks like Tom Woods has some beef with Jack Hunter changing his tune about the flag. On his FB.


Here it is:

_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.)_

----------


## Chieppa1

> Here it is:
> 
> _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.)_


While I could give two $#@!s about the flag (as both governments involved in that war were well...governments), I do like seeing Jack Hunter being taken to the woodshed a little by Woods. Hunter has been such a divisive force within the liberty movement and having him have to grovel to CNN & MSNBC to be relevant again brings a smile to my face.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Looks like Tom Woods has some beef with Jack Hunter changing his tune about the flag. On his FB.


Woods is a good, decent, honorable man. Hunter not so much.

----------


## Chieppa1

> Woods is a good, decent, honorable man. Hunter not so much.


Tom Woods is the most respectable man I've ever personally met.

----------


## Vanguard101

"Eat $#@! coward"-Ahahahaha. Ahahaha tell me more.


I guess Woods doesn't believe in political evolution. Dude is overrated.

----------


## Chieppa1

> "Eat $#@! coward"-Ahahahaha. Ahahaha tell me more.
> 
> 
> I guess Woods doesn't believe in political evolution. Dude is overrated.


So you believe Jack Hunter evolved? Or did he just come out with all this stuff because he was fired from the Rand Paul campaign because of this past and wants back into the political life? He enjoyed thinking of himself as a spokesperson for the liberty movement and is now stuck writing articles on Rare.us for red-meat Republicans. 

He enjoys trying to craft the liberty movement in his image from within the beltway. 

And how is Tom Woods overrated? What would make him better? More TV spots?

----------


## AuH20

> "Eat $#@! coward"-Ahahahaha. Ahahaha tell me more.
> 
> 
> I guess Woods doesn't believe in political evolution. Dude is overrated.


Opportunism or evolution? There is a difference. Most of the time the former prevails.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> "Eat $#@! coward"-Ahahahaha. Ahahaha tell me more.
> 
> 
> I guess Woods doesn't believe in political evolution. Dude is overrated.


"Political evolution" is a euphemism for flip-flopping spineless cowardice. Jack Hunter sold his soul. He is what every libertarian activist should strive NOT to be. Good for Tom Woods for calling out that traitor for the scum that he is.




> And how is Tom Woods overrated? What would make him better? More TV spots?


Some people get mad that Woods doesn't kowtow to the whims of the mob for the purposes of political expediency. These people are the frauds amongst us.

----------


## kahless

> I don't even blame the minority groups. They are doing what comes natural in terms of expanding power in a foreign land. It's the progressive, *statist whites that need to be  bashed over the head repeatedly*. They are the terminal cancer in this country who have fomented so much division and hate for many decades. White progressive baby boomers who run major corporations and institutions need to be forcibly removed before they kill us all. We all see them on the television every day with their forked tongues.





> So you're saying there's a movement of statists or "nationalists" that are fomenting the division that actually promotes the socialists?  
> 
> So there's kind of a Nationalist Socialist movement that is coming to a head.  Hmmmm... where have I heard that before.
> 
> *Nationalist Socialist*...Nationalist Socialist...Nationalist Socialist...
> 
> God!  It just sounds so familiar.


Bingo! You must spread some reputation around before giving it to AuH20 and wizardwatson again.

----------


## AuH20

Cooter going at it with CNN!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> It seems like the issue of whether the states can secede from the union is somewhat of a separate issue.  Theoretically you can take the position that the southern states had the right to secede but at the same time recognize that they weren't in any way "pro liberty" and engaged in awful human rights abuses.


Which is pretty much where I'm at.

Look, I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I care little for the south or flags in general.

But I do have an issue when Jacobin-esque mobs of politically correct trendies, apologists, social justice warriors and assorted fellow travelers start swirling up into an F5 "Vortex of Doom" and wipe whole swaths of history into the memory hole.

----------


## Danke



----------


## AuH20

> Which is pretty much where I'm at.
> 
> Look, I really don't have a dog in this hunt, I care little for the south or flags in general.
> 
> But I do have an issue when Jacobin-esque mobs of politically correct trendies, apologists, social justice warriors and assorted fellow travelers start swirling up into an F5 "Vortex of Doom" and wipe whole swaths of history into the memory hole.


The maelstrom is here and folks better pick a side. This isn't simply about a flag. The gatekeepers don't operate that way.

----------


## kahless

> I don't even blame the minority groups. They are doing what comes natural in terms of expanding power in a foreign land. It's the progressive, statist whites that need to be  bashed over the head repeatedly. They are the terminal cancer in this country who have fomented so much division and hate for many decades. White progressive baby boomers who run major corporations and institutions need to be forcibly removed before they kill us all. We all see them on the television every day with their forked tongues.





> Cooter going at it with CNN!


She is a disgrace.  There was nothing wrong with what he said and she cast aspersions while obviously not listening to anything the man said.  What a disgusting way her and Lemon behaved.  

I would hope people would write-in and demand an apology but who is going to do that.  Whites are trained to be spineless cuckolds when it comes to this issue so that $#@! will keep getting away with it.  Apology for the language but that is what she is.

----------


## Carlybee

> Ahahaha the Neo-cons continue to downvote me. As if that makes your defense for the confederacy any better LOL


Who has defended the Confederacy? Last I checked we were defending the right to fly the flag. And neocons? Hardly. It's the neocons acquiescing to the PC Police.

----------


## Carlybee

Alabama removing Confederate flag from state grounds.

----------


## otherone

> But I do have an issue when Jacobin-esque mobs of politically correct trendies, apologists, social justice warriors and assorted fellow travelers start swirling up into an F5 "Vortex of Doom" and wipe whole swaths of history into the memory hole.


 _"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." 
_Orwell.

The PC mobs are simply useful idiots.

----------


## nayjevin

> Cooter going at it with CNN!


_"SENATOR CHRIS MCDANIEL RELEASES STATEMENT REGARDING MISSISSIPPI'S STATE FLAG
June 23, 2015. (Laurel, MS.) - Senator Chris McDaniel today released the following statement regarding calls to do away with Mississippi's official state flag.
"The price we pay to live in a free society is to occasionally be offended. A cultural or historical cleansing of all things potentially offensive will do nothing to alleviate the problems caused by racism. To pretend otherwise is a disservice to serious discourse on the subject.
We must examine our hearts and not resort to placing emotional blame for problems we face on symbols such as a flag.
I love all Mississippians, regardless of race or political affiliation. We are a family. But I disagree with those who use political correctness to silence differing viewpoints. I likewise believe it is in poor taste to use the tragic South Carolina massacre to promote a political agenda.
I understand, very well, both sides of the debate. Slavery is our nation's original sin, and government sanctioned discrimination is evil. As a strong proponent of individual rights, I will always defend individuals against the abuses of government and fight for liberty by insisting government's reach remain limited.
However, at the end of the day, political correctness is about power; consequently, its practitioners will never be appeased.
They won't stop until dissent is crushed and tolerance of opposing viewpoints is no longer accepted.
I will not be a part of such an agenda.
__The people of Mississippi have already decided this issue, by referendum. I will respect their wishes."_

Both excellent.  There are too few voices of reason on both sides of this debate.

----------


## nayjevin

> Who has defended the Confederacy? Last I checked we were defending the right to fly the flag. And neocons? Hardly. It's the neocons acquiescing to the PC Police.


There is no question that people have the right to fly the flag.  People have the right to use racial slurs.  It's counter-productive to any reasonable cause, though, it lacks empathy and understanding, and it hurts my ability to teach people about secession, nullification, interposition, and federalism.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It is no coincidence that the first states in history were ruled by men who also claimed to be gods. it is also no coincidence that today, our school children are compelled to say a prayer every morning to the state.
> 
> Politics IS religion.





> What reason do you have to be hostile toward me personally?  Do you realize that your links corroborate the idea I was conveying?
> 
> It seems like you think I'm attacking religion as an extension of the state (or vice versa).  This is the farthest thing from the case.  I am attacking the state as a competing religion, which either directly supplants an existing religion (as you insinuated by bringing up the Bolsheviks) or dilutes an existing religion to the point of it not bearing a whole lot of resemblance to how it actually reads (for example, Christianity in the US today).
> 
> I take it as axiomatic that doctrine dictates practice, and that practice also reflects doctrine.
> You cannot bury dead soldiers using a state funeral without taking a very specific eschatological stand.  Regardless of the "religion" of that soldier or his family, the mere existence and use of that ceremony dictates that those participating believe that what brought meaning to that man's life is that he was a servant of the state.  What happens to that man's soul immediately becomes moot when that ceremony is allowed to happen: what matters is suddenly what he was, not what he is.  If you see a "priest" from a competing "religion" participating in this ceremony, it is a practical guarantee you will not hear him preach the Gospel, because it becomes subservient to that soldier's service.  And this where the Gospel is most needed!
> 
> You cannot compel children to recite a prayer to a flag every morning and not assume the trappings of religion.  You cannot compel an entire stadium full of sportsfans to sing a hymn prior to the commencement of their entertainment and not assume the trappings of religion.  And as soon as you do that, just as with the funeral, you elbow out something else.


Amen! 


> Tying it back to the OP, this is one reason why I do not condone removal of the Confederate battle flag.  I don't think it's a coincidence that southerners are known for living in the "Bible belt".  It is a geography where the state religion is weakened by a competing state religion, and this allows real religion to seep in.
> 
> And to address your rebuttal, you might have known all of this if you asked for clarification, instead of just assuming what I know and what I believe and insinuating that I can't read.


Hmmm....




> This is strange, given that you have suggested elsewhere that an innocent man freed after 39 years in prison was no better off than if he had just been put to death - or at least not sufficiently better off to make any difference. Why, then, should you think any differently with respect to slaves?


I don't know.  Honestly, I'd rather die than be enslaved for 39 years, but that's just me, and I also know where I'm going when I die.  If I didn't I'm not sure how my opinion would change.

----------


## KingNothing

> That's the problem.
> 
> Give one set of whackjobs an inch, the next set will take a mile.
> 
> It will only be a matter of time before that is exactly what is happening.


But if we can give an inch here and avoid a tidal wave of bad press, we have to.  In turn, if the other side over-reaches, which they will, we'll push back then and make them look foolish.  The social justice warriors and PC police will do stupid, insane, delusional things.  All we have to do is let them.  We effectively lose nothing by letting go of a rebel flag.  We'll stand to gain a ton when they pick a stupid hill to die on.

As an example, remember when comedian and lefty Steve Colbert got raked over the coals for a joke at the expense of the Washington Redskins?  The social justice warrior nutjobs overreached, attacked someone who was more or less on their side, and totally discredited that entire argument.  They'll eventually do the same on this issue, and EVERY other issue they find near and dear to their bleeding hearts.

----------


## CaptUSA

We're now up to 14 pages discussing a distraction that Paul attempted to avoid.  

The media is playing a game.  Rand has to play it.  We don't.

----------


## William Tell

> We're now up to 14 pages discussing a distraction that Paul attempted to avoid.  
> 
> The media is playing a game.  Rand has to play it.  We don't.


If he meant to avoid it, he sure doesn't know how to avoid things. I agree it would be better if he had been able to avoid it. But he didn't.

----------


## KingNothing

> I agree with respect to the flag issue, but with respect to the Nazi reverse-lynching movement that's forming, no.


This is the kind of thing that crazy people do.  They make mockeries of themselves and totally negate any momentum or goodwill they've acquired.

Let them.

The progressives, social justice warriors, and marxists will ruin this.  They'll ultimately gain nothing but the removal of a few pointless flags from government buildings.  Who cares?  However, if we push back on this issue, and turn it into a rallying cry for the left, we will come out looking ridiculous.  So I say give in here.  Push back when they bring-up "white violence," and "white terrorism," and "toxic masculinity," and whatever stupid crap they try to drum-up.  They'll end up looking foolish.  Let them.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> What reason do you have to be hostile toward me personally?  Do you realize that your links corroborate the idea I was conveying?
> 
> It seems like you think I'm attacking religion as an extension of the state (or vice versa).  This is the farthest thing from the case.  I am attacking the state as a competing religion, which either directly supplants an existing religion (as you insinuated by bringing up the Bolsheviks) or dilutes an existing religion to the point of it not bearing a whole lot of resemblance to how it actually reads (for example, Christianity in the US today).
> 
> I take it as axiomatic that doctrine dictates practice, and that practice also reflects doctrine.
> You cannot bury dead soldiers using a state funeral without taking a very specific eschatological stand.  Regardless of the "religion" of that soldier or his family, the mere existence and use of that ceremony dictates that those participating believe that what brought meaning to that man's life is that he was a servant of the state.  What happens to that man's soul immediately becomes moot when that ceremony is allowed to happen: what matters is suddenly what he was, not what he is.  If you see a "priest" from a competing "religion" participating in this ceremony, it is a practical guarantee you will not hear him preach the Gospel, because it becomes subservient to that soldier's service.  And this where the Gospel is most needed!
> 
> You cannot compel children to recite a prayer to a flag every morning and not assume the trappings of religion.  You cannot compel an entire stadium full of sportsfans to sing a hymn prior to the commencement of their entertainment and not assume the trappings of religion.  And as soon as you do that, just as with the funeral, you elbow out something else.
> 
> ...


I'll retract my initial harshness as I did jump the gun on what the intent behind your post was, especially considering that I agree with about 90% of what you've stated. The assertion "politics is religion" is what threw me off, as well as the implication that Egypt was the "first states", something that is not historically accurate. I do myself subscribe to a view of the magistrate authority that is, to some degree, similar to the old Sumerian standard of law enforcement as subordinate authorities under God, which dovetails with my understanding of how Moral Law applies to the Christian faith.

I'm fresh off of several arguments with New Atheists on a couple of other forums on this topic and I've grown a little bit weary of people talking about the connection between religion and this issue, particularly considering that it was the New York Presbyterian Church (whose doctrines I also adhere to) that made the first major push against slavery (white or negro) in the Northern states, where it lasted about as long as it did in the South. It's not an excuse or a justification for my conduct, but more an explanation.




> Ahahaha the Neo-cons continue to downvote me. As if that makes your defense for the confederacy any better LOL


As a native Pennsylvanian with roots here going back to before the Civil War, I'm tempted to fly the Battle Flag of Virginia as a response to this drivel, something that will not win me friends up here. I wasn't aware that RPF was a hotbed for Neo-cons. More likely, it's seeing some members who are so paranoid and insecure about their positions that they see Neo-cons every time they are challenged.

----------


## KingNothing

> If he meant to avoid it, he sure doesn't know how to avoid things. I agree it would be better if he had been able to avoid it. But he didn't.


Rand avoided it by recognizing the issue is a losing one.  The "win" is that you prolong a battle over a freaking flag in which the majority of swing voters would view him as out of touch, potentially racist, and generally mean-spirited in light of the recent tragedy.  The longer that battle would last, the more fodder the left would have to raise money and convince independents that the GOP is just a party of old white racists who happen to be attached to the past.  By just giving up on the issue, we take a wedge position, and a crutch, away from our opponents.  Why give them a crutch?

----------


## Carlybee

> There is no question that people have the right to fly the flag.  People have the right to use racial slurs.  It's counter-productive to any reasonable cause, though, it lacks empathy and understanding, and it hurts my ability to teach people about secession, nullification, interposition, and federalism.


How are racial slurs and flying the flag the same thing?  Sorry...guess I'm not catching your drift nor am I sure how it all hurts your ability to teach. Nor frankly, do I care. I guess those of us with ancestors who died in that war, as misguided as it was with regard to slavery are just supposed to forget and be ashamed for them even if they weren't slave owners.  Let's just remove all semblances of a historical symbol..you can't buy one now..you can't get a toy car with it. Wiped clean. As if it never existed. If I were you I would be concerned about teaching the atrocities that happened under Old Glory before the civil war and continue to be committed under our current, politically correct, non offensive, not treasonous current American Flag...symbol of all that is good and right with the world.

----------


## KingNothing

The PC police and the social justice warriors have only one card to play -- victimization.  They play it by painting their opponents as oppressive, mean-spirited, uncaring, violent, bullies.  Don't give them any ammo.  Wait for them to be intolerant, wait for them to bully, and then counter their appeals to emotion by showing that they're the people being oppressive.  The important aspect to this is that you choose the appropriate issues to push back on.

A stupid flag is not it.  The notion that all men are inherently evil, or that all white people are complicit any any violence perpetuated by one white person, is.

----------


## KingNothing

> How are racial slurs and flying the flag the same thing?  Sorry...guess I'm not catching your drift nor am I sure how it all hurts your ability to teach. Nor frankly, do I care. I guess those of us with ancestors who died in that war, as misguided as it was with regard to slavery are just supposed to forget and be ashamed for them even if they weren't slave owners.  Let's just remove all semblances of a historical symbol..you can't buy one now..you can't get a toy car with it. Wiped clean. As if it never existed. If I were you I would be concerned about teaching the atrocities that happened under Old Glory before the civil war and continue to be committed under our current, politically correct, non offensive, not treasonous current American Flag...symbol of all that is good and right with the world.



Your entire argument is just a series of logical fallacies, and you're not being even a little bit pragmatic about this.

----------


## Carlybee

> The PC police and the social justice warriors have only one card to play -- victimization.  They play it by painting their opponents as oppressive, mean-spirited, uncaring, violent, bullies.  Don't give them any ammo.  Wait for them to be intolerant, wait for them to bully, and then counter their appeals to emotion by showing that they're the people being oppressive.  The important aspect to this is that you choose the appropriate issues to push back on.
> 
> A stupid flag is not it.  The notion that all men are inherently evil, or that all white people are complicit any any violence perpetuated by one white person, is.


It all boils down to one thing...reparations. We will be kicked in the ass over something people who lived over 150 years ago did until the end of time. Who is really being oppressed here? I can't stand racial $#@! stirrers any more than I can stand idiot white supremacists but where does it end?  We can take down every flag in the country and there will always be some group offended by something and some other group trying to offend.

----------


## Carlybee

> Your entire argument is just a series of logical fallacies, and you're not being even a little bit pragmatic about this.


I disagree. I'm not the one buckling to mob opinion. This latest BS makes me not even want to live in this country. It's starting to remind me of Europe. The PC parts of Europe anyway.

----------


## Badger Paul

"and told Rush he was going to run a namby pamby campaign. So this falls within those parameters."

Good! Then you and others like you can do something else with your time this year and next.

Rand, unlike his father and refreshingly so, is not going to let race derail what he wants to say in this campaign. He made that mistake in 2010 and its basically put the campaign under Mitch McConnell's iron thumb. Not anymore. 

If Rand's going to go down it's not going to be because some goddamn newsletter he never wrote. This is the dividing line and those in the Revolution who somehow thought Ron Paul was bringing back the Confederacy can take themselves to Constitution Party Land if they're upset about it that much. It's your decision. But I'm happy Rand is not going to let stale dogma wreck his campaign.

----------


## KingNothing

> It all boils down to one thing...reparations. We will be kicked in the ass over something people who lived over 150 years ago did until the end of time. Who is really being oppressed here? I can't stand racial $#@! stirrers any more than I can stand idiot white supremacists but where does it end?  We can take down every flag in the country and there will always be some group offended by something and some other group trying to offend.


And when the social justice warriors start to discuss reparations and systemic white supremacy and other nonsense, we should all push back to make the foolishness of their stance very clear to swing voters.  This specific flag issue, though, is not a winning one for us.

----------


## KingNothing

> I disagree. I'm not the one buckling to mob opinion. This latest BS makes me not even want to live in this country. It's starting to remind me of Europe. The PC parts of Europe anyway.


PC culture is infuriating.  I'm all for fighting it.  But you have to keep in mind, that the tax code, the war on drugs, and the war on terror are actually killing people, killing the economy, and killing our freedom.  They're much larger issues than the thoughts and feelings of a small subset of the left's voting base.  If we focus on the big issues we can keep this small issue from becoming a wedge, and a platform with which the progressive nutjobs can inspire donors and voters.

If you believe in slippery slopes I can see why you're against giving an inch anywhere.  I'm saying that I don't think this issue will snowball.  We can give in here, and in doing so avoid looking like idiots.  That ball will be back in their court, and they'll make a case for reparations, or for tearing down thomas jefferson's statue, or for some other absurd SJW wetdream.  When they do that, they'll take a dozen steps backwards for this one step forward.

If the cause celebre here were gun rights, and not a silly flag, I'd be TOTALLY on your side right now.  But it isn't.  The cause celebre is a fiction.  It is nothing of substance.  It doesn't matter.  Why fight for it?

Anyway, I've now said plenty on the subject.  Please just be mindful of the larger issues and considerate of the hills you're willing to die on.

----------


## nayjevin

> How are racial slurs and flying the flag the same thing?


It's not.  But I didn't say it is.  I made two statements and did not say they are equivalent.




> Sorry...guess I'm not catching your drift nor am I sure how it all hurts your ability to teach. Nor frankly, do I care.


I guess it doesn't have to be important to you, but I don't think that everyone that died for the South did so for the right to treat black people as chattel, and those who do believe that ought be educated about a state's right to secede.




> I guess those of us with ancestors who died in that war, as misguided as it was with regard to slavery are just supposed to forget and be ashamed for them even if they weren't slave owners.


I can understand if you feel that way, but it's not a result of anything I wrote.




> Let's just remove all semblances of a historical symbol..you can't buy one now..you can't get a toy car with it. Wiped clean. As if it never existed. If I were you I would be concerned about teaching the atrocities that happened under Old Glory before the civil war and continue to be committed under our current, politically correct, non offensive, not treasonous current American Flag...symbol of all that is good and right with the world.


Absurd.  We agree more than you give me credit for.  I'm not promoting a cleansing of all that is offensive.  I will resist the push to declare use of symbols as hate crimes, as that violates the 1st amendment (and more importantly the natural right to free speech).

----------


## AuH20

> PC culture is infuriating.  I'm all for fighting it.  But you have to keep in mind, that the tax code, the war on drugs, and the war on terror are actually killing people, killing the economy, and killing our freedom.  They're much larger issues than the thoughts and feelings of a small subset of the left's voting base.  If we focus on the big issues we can keep this small issue from becoming a wedge, and a platform with which the progressive nutjobs can inspire donors and voters.
> 
> If you believe in slippery slopes I can see why you're against giving an inch anywhere.  I'm saying that I don't think this issue will snowball.  We can give in here, and in doing so avoid looking like idiots.  That ball will be back in their court, and they'll make a case for reparations, or for tearing down thomas jefferson's statue, or for some other absurd SJW wetdream.  When they do that, they'll take a dozen steps backwards for this one step forward.
> 
> *If the cause celebre here were gun rights, and not a silly flag, I'd be TOTALLY on your side right now.*  But it isn't.  The cause celebre is a fiction.  It is nothing of substance.  It doesn't matter.  Why fight for it?
> 
> Anyway, I've now said plenty on the subject.  Please just be mindful of the larger issues and considerate of the hills you're willing to die on.


It's all connected. When these social controllers inevitably come for their opponents, the targeted will be labeled with the tag of Neoconfederate. We're all in the same boat, like it or not. Now whether this unified struggle extends to Rand's campaign is certainly debatable. 

http://www.infowars.com/left-links-s...o-confederacy/




> *…bond that unites Confederate ideology and the Second Amendment is the idea of “nullification.” This is the belief that the states are the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not constitutional and that the states are thus always free to ignore federal law. States and not the courts, on this warped view of the Constitution, judge what is or is not constitutional.*

----------


## JK/SEA

we need another distraction...any ideas?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

These cowards won't even defend their ground on this, and you guys expect them to go fight for your liberties against the USG? HAHAHA. Man, you guys are a bunch of suckers. Bunch of milquetoast Bene Arnold's if I ever did see it. This isn't about what happened in that church - it's about the complete and total annihilation of any perceived, or real, resistance against Leviathan, and if you need any clue's, it's all around you. How dare anyone defy the 'Union' and its tentacles. You think any of ya'll going to have any independence from the Potomac? Look what they are doing to the last folk who tried that, and you guys are all ready giving up and no shots were needed, just some invectives, some little words and look how fast you shrivel. Ha. You know who you are, I don't need to name anyone. 

Pathetic.

----------


## Michael Landon

"The American flag is inescapably a symbol of genocide.” - Native Tribes

- ML

----------


## nayjevin

> These cowards won't even defend their ground on this, and you guys expect them to go fight for your liberties against the USG? HAHAHA. Man, you guys are a bunch of suckers. Bunch of milquetoast Bene Arnold's if I ever did see it. This isn't about what happened in that church - it's about the complete and total annihilation of any perceived, or real, resistance against Leviathan, and if you need any clue's, it's all around you. How dare anyone defy the 'Union' and its tentacles. You think any of ya'll going to have any independence from the Potomac? Look what they are doing to the last folk who tried that, and you guys are all ready giving up and no shots were needed, just some invectives, some little words and look how fast you shrivel. Ha. You know who you are, I don't need to name anyone. 
> 
> Pathetic.


My opinion on this issue has not changed as a result of recent events.  I think you sound more unstable than you are.  I don't think that kind of argument is effective.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> There is no question that people have the right to fly the flag.  People have the right to use racial slurs.  It's counter-productive to any reasonable cause, though, it lacks empathy and understanding, and it hurts my ability to teach people about secession, nullification, interposition, and federalism.


Are you blind? They've all ready tied all that into the Confederacy. Anyone advocating those positions is a surly neoconfederate. Your hill has been made, not by us, but our opposition. It's gone beyond the flag, or the church. It's about wiping out any evidence, history, or idea of disunion, which the Confederacy stood for. You lose this ground, it's gone and ain't coming back. They're attacking everything remotely that is against Leviathan. If you slink from this watch them go on being more bold. Any attempt at removing yourself from Leviathan will be labeled, will be marginalized, and attacked. They'll call you a neoconfederate for thinking that the states should hold any power over the Feds, or your local boards any power over the States. Their goal has always been complete and total subservience to DC. This has always been a major obstacle for them. They're using that tragedy for all its worth.

----------


## dannno

> Lol at me listening to a Confederate state tell me the war was about "states rights" when the South felt it was there right to secede over slavery because it was a states rights issue. Ok Confederate


Wrong, the South felt they had the right to secede over ____________ because it is a state's rights issue. It didn't matter what the issue was. In fact, only 4% of the white population in the south owned slaves at the time and I would imagine most of the populace in the south probably were against slavery. They just wanted to retain the right to secede.  It was likely the establishment and banks that were keeping slavery legal in the south because of the debt bonds that required payment. It was a too big to fail situation for the banks. When the establishment realized it was time to end slavery, instead of bailing out the slaves they took it as an opportunity to destroy the Constitution and start a war that they could profit from.

----------


## AuH20

> Are you blind? They've all ready tied all that into the Confederacy. Anyone advocating those positions is a surly neoconfederate. Your hill has been made, not by us, but our opposition. It's gone beyond the flag, or the church. It's about wiping out any evidence, history, or idea of disunion, which the Confederacy stood for. You lose this ground, it's gone and ain't coming back. They're attacking everything remotely that is against Leviathan. If you slink from this watch them go on being more bold. Any attempt at removing yourself from Leviathan will be labeled, will be marginalized, and attacked. They'll call you a neoconfederate for thinking that the states should hold any power over the Feds, or your local boards any power over the States. Their goal has always been complete and total subservience to DC. This has always been a major obstacle for them. They're using that tragedy for all its worth.


There is no going back. I don't think people seem to understand the gravity of the situation. You are a neoconfederate for merely advocating for liberty in this backwards dystopia. That is the state's narrative. I have no problem wearing these heavy chains, since I know what's at stake.

----------


## Vanguard101

> Wrong, the South felt they had the right to secede over ____________ because it is a state's rights issue. It didn't matter what the issue was. In fact, *only 4% of the white population in the south owned slaves at the time* and I would imagine most people in the south probably were against slavery. They just wanted to retain the right to secede.  It was likely the establishment and banks that were keeping slavery legal in the south because of the debt bonds that required payment. It was a too big to fail situation for the banks. When the establishment realized it was time to end slavery, instead of bailing out the slaves they took it as an opportunity to destroy the Constitution and start a war that they could profit from.


This does nothing to change the fact that the south seceded over slavery.

----------


## Carlybee

> And when the social justice warriors start to discuss reparations and systemic white supremacy and other nonsense, we should all push back to make the foolishness of their stance very clear to swing voters.  This specific flag issue, though, is not a winning one for us.


It's not a winning one because we continually allow liberals to write the narrative.

----------


## Carlybee

> PC culture is infuriating.  I'm all for fighting it.  But you have to keep in mind, that the tax code, the war on drugs, and the war on terror are actually killing people, killing the economy, and killing our freedom.  They're much larger issues than the thoughts and feelings of a small subset of the left's voting base.  If we focus on the big issues we can keep this small issue from becoming a wedge, and a platform with which the progressive nutjobs can inspire donors and voters.
> 
> If you believe in slippery slopes I can see why you're against giving an inch anywhere.  I'm saying that I don't think this issue will snowball.  We can give in here, and in doing so avoid looking like idiots.  That ball will be back in their court, and they'll make a case for reparations, or for tearing down thomas jefferson's statue, or for some other absurd SJW wetdream.  When they do that, they'll take a dozen steps backwards for this one step forward.
> 
> If the cause celebre here were gun rights, and not a silly flag, I'd be TOTALLY on your side right now.  But it isn't.  The cause celebre is a fiction.  It is nothing of substance.  It doesn't matter.  Why fight for it?
> 
> Anyway, I've now said plenty on the subject.  Please just be mindful of the larger issues and considerate of the hills you're willing to die on.



Well..except that it has already snowballed. We went from taking down a flag to banning a flag and the various medium it is displayed on to forcing schools to change their names.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> My opinion on this issue has not changed as a result of recent events.  I think you sound more unstable than you are.  I don't think that kind of argument is effective.


Oooh, unstable. How imaginative. Look around. How are you going to argue against any nationalization through the legislatures of the states once you've given them the victory against the actual folk who went and did that? Once they win here, all they have to do is label you a neoconfederate and tie in your federalism with the Confederacy, and you're done. That's what they're doing - it's plain as day. This is not an attack on the flag, or the Confederacy, but against the opponents of Leviathan. The more this has gone on, the more it's abundantly clear what the goal is. This has gone way past the Battle Flag @ the SC State Capitol.

----------


## AuH20

> Oooh, unstable. How imaginative. Look around. How are you going to argue against any nationalization through the legislatures of the states once you've given them the victory against the actual folk who went and did that? Once they win here, all they have to do is label you a neoconfederate and tie in your federalism with the Confederacy, and you're done. That's what they're doing - it's plain as day. This is not an attack on the flag, or the Confederacy, but against the opponents of Leviathan. The more this has gone on, the more it's abundantly clear what the goal is. This has gone way past the Battle Flag @ the SC State Capitol.


Dehumanizing their opponents before they drop the axe. It's been done plenty of times before by tyrants. What do think is going to happen when a brave state legislature and governor tells the feds enough?

----------


## nayjevin

> Oooh, unstable. How imaginative. Look around. How are you going to argue against any nationalization through the legislatures of the states once you've given them the victory against the actual folk who went and did that? Once they win here, all they have to do is label you a neoconfederate and tie in your federalism with the Confederacy, and you're done. That's what they're doing - it's plain as day. This is not an attack on the flag, or the Confederacy, but against the opponents of Leviathan. The more this has gone on, the more it's abundantly clear what the goal is. This has gone way past the Battle Flag @ the SC State Capitol.


I was trying to do you a favor.  You do come off as unstable speaking that way.  I write you off as a person who does not take Alex Jones with a grain of salt.

----------


## AuH20

> I was trying to do you a favor.  You do come off as unstable speaking that way.  I write you off as a person who does not take Alex Jones with a grain of salt.


I don't think he's unstable at all. He's simply connecting the dots. If you can shame and denigrate a group of people in the eyes of the public, then they are considered less human in the grand scheme of things. Let's remove ourselves from the short-term political outlook and examine this through a historical lens.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I was trying to do you a favor.  You do come off as unstable speaking that way.  I write you off as a person who does not take Alex Jones with a grain of salt.


Whatever gives you the jollies. Gotta throw in the conspiracy bit too. Again, how unimaginative. (By the way, it's not like I'm some new member here, so, ya...this place has been turned into one of those Russian matriska dolls since 2008. Remember those days? Now, you'll find half the people here defending McConnell, and all sorts of Federal non-sense, authoritarian writing the narratives, because...electoral victories (perceived victories...))! Ya. Go get'em tiger.

----------


## devil21

> Oooh, unstable. How imaginative. Look around. How are you going to argue against any nationalization through the legislatures of the states once you've given them the victory against the actual folk who went and did that? Once they win here, all they have to do is label you a neoconfederate and tie in your federalism with the Confederacy, and you're done. That's what they're doing - it's plain as day. This is not an attack on the flag, or the Confederacy, but against the opponents of Leviathan. The more this has gone on, the more it's abundantly clear what the goal is. This has gone way past the Battle Flag @ the SC State Capitol.


And all started by an arguably fake event (at least to large extent) used to distract attention and energy while the last bits of sovereignty are legislated away by our "representatives".

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> And all started by an arguably fake event (at least to large extent) used to distract attention and energy while the last bits of sovereignty are legislated away by our "representatives".


Eternal vigilance is farcical. The entire point of DC is to erode your sovereignty. I'm just waiting for the real answer to DC to come forward, if and when that'll ever happen. Little tidbit: DC is the distraction. The power lies in your communities, your counties, and your state. How long did the colonies petition the King? When's enough enough. Aren't you guys tired of this yet? It's not like we're some new commodity. The fight's been going on for ages, and we keep losing more and more ground trying the same approach: the DC approach. Man, I'm just tired of that. Let me know when some real political action against DC starts taking place...though good luck with any of that once this hill is lost.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> This does nothing to change the fact that the south seceded over slavery.


No they didn't, they seceded over tariffs, the slavery issue was a side matter that was not under discussion until more than 2 years into the war, and was a cynical ploy by Lincoln to try and get the Abolishionists on his side to tip the 1864 election against McClellan. I know this for a fact because my great (3x) grandfather was a McClellan supporter in 1864 and had 3 cousins who were drafted in 1862 and nobody in the political establishment in the Northern states thought the war was about slavery (the abolishionists were considered fringe, right or wrong), the practice was still common in Northern states, particularly among affluent persons such as General Grant's wife.

The primary source for your version of Civil War history is Marxist historical revisionists and the Neo-cons that run the Claremont Institute. So which are you, a Neo-con or a Communist? (that was sarcasm, just so you know, though you are basically on their sides on this issue and you definitely debate like on of said groups)

----------


## AuH20

Lincoln was quite the schemer. Note the letter he wrote to the Naval Commander Gustavus Fox after Fox led the failed mission to resupply Fort Sumter. Of course, this incident led to the attack of Fort Sumter and the start of the American Civil War:




> I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground; while, by an accident, for which you were in no wise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent was, you were deprived of a war vessel with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprize.
> 
> I most cheerfully and truly declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort, have greatly heightened you, in my estimation.  For a daring and dangerous enterprize, of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man, of all my acquaintances, whom I would select.
> 
> *You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.*

----------


## nayjevin

> I don't think he's unstable at all. He's simply connecting the dots. If you can shame and denigrate a group of people in the eyes of the public, then they are considered less human in the grand scheme of things. Let's remove ourselves from the short-term political outlook and examine this through a historical lens.


I said he comes off as more unstable than I think he really is.




> Whatever gives you the jollies. Gotta throw in the conspiracy bit too. Again, how unimaginative. (By the way, it's not like I'm some new member here, so, ya...this place has been turned into one of those Russian matriska dolls since 2008. Remember those days? Now, you'll find half the people here defending McConnell, and all sorts of Federal non-sense, authoritarian writing the narratives, because...electoral victories (perceived victories...))! Ya. Go get'em tiger.


I said nothing about conspiracies.  As much as you demand precise language and literal comprehension of your posts from others, it's silly for you to put words in my mouth and fail to understand the simple statements I make.

I should have been more clear that I do recognize you as a good poster.  It seems you have difficulty reading when you are defensive.

----------


## kahless

Warner Bros. to Stop Licensing 'Dukes of Hazzard' Products With Confederate Flag
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=31993341




> "Warner Bros. Consumer Products has one licensee producing die-cast replicas and vehicle model kits featuring the General Lee with the confederate flag on its roof — as it was seen in the TV series," a spokesman for the company told Vulture. “We have elected to cease the licensing of these product categories."


Well that did not long in this thread.  Give it a little more time and they will have a remastered version that eliminates it from all episodes and "new features" like dialogue being changed to be politically correct. 

In the politically correct versions the General Lee will soon be called the General Grant.

----------


## dannno

> This does nothing to change the fact that the south seceded over slavery.


First, read my last post again in it's entirety then read the rest of this post - you are very wrong on this issue imo. I'm not from the south, I'm from so cal. I am a "Confederate Sympathizer" because I believe in liberty and state sovereignty. 

The populace in the south had nothing to do with it, it was the politicians - the south was FORCED to secede over slavery (although even this is probably false) because of politicians - the north tried to change the rules and say they couldn't secede and then the south was like "Ahhh, hell no, we can secede from the north any time we want!!!"

And THAT is what the war was about, that is why so many people in the south, including blacks, fought the war.

Also, hope you caught this post:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5904457

----------


## KingNothing

> There is no going back. I don't think people seem to understand the gravity of the situation. *You are a neoconfederate for merely advocating for liberty in this backwards dystopia.* That is the state's narrative. I have no problem wearing these heavy chains, since I know what's at stake.


Only if you let our opponents frame the debate.

Why would we do that?  Learn from what Randy did on the topic of abortion.  We can control the narrative far easier than our opponents because we, as a philosophical underpinning, endorse liberty in a very consistent sense, we advocate non-aggression, and in almost every instance, we support following the golden rule in our interactions with others, and we support working hard to provide for ourselves and the less fortunate.  We are the kind ones.  We are the tolerant ones.  We are the industrious, and we are the caring.  We can control the narrative, because we have the strength of character and the power of our deeds to support our positions.

----------


## KingNothing

> First, read my last post again in it's entirety then read the rest of this post - you are very wrong on this issue imo. I'm not from the south, I'm from so cal. I am a "Confederate Sympathizer" because I believe in liberty and state sovereignty. 
> 
> The populace in the south had nothing to do with it, it was the politicians - the south was FORCED to secede over slavery (although even this is probably false) because of politicians - the north tried to change the rules and say they couldn't secede and then the south was like "Ahhh, hell no, we can secede from the north any time we want!!!"
> 
> And THAT is what the war was about, that is why so many people in the south, including blacks, fought the war.
> 
> Also, hope you caught this post:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5904457


Your self-branding is ridiculous.

Just embrace liberty, individuality, productivity, and kindness.  Stop calling yourself a neo confederate, and stop accepting it if someone else describes you as such.  Stop attributing rationale to the actions of humans who lived 150 years ago in order to justify your own opinions.  We don't need the baggage of dead people.  All we need is to continue to set an example with our own words and actions.

----------


## twomp

I wonder what the media will have you guys arguing over next week?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> There is no going back. I don't think people seem to understand the gravity of the situation. You are a neoconfederate for merely advocating for liberty in this backwards dystopia. That is the state's narrative. I have no problem wearing these heavy chains, since I know what's at stake.


Indeed. The ramifications here are overarching. Our so-called liberty leaders stabbing us in the back on this one (with a few exceptions) have hung us out to dry, and failed us despicably. My only hope is that this lights more fire under the militia movement nationally, as people will see what chicken $#@! cowards their political representation is. Time to take matters into your own hands, everyone.

----------


## Vanguard101

> No they didn't, they seceded over tariffs, the slavery issue was a side matter that was not under discussion until more than 2 years into the war, and was a cynical ploy by Lincoln to try and get the Abolishionists on his side to tip the 1864 election against McClellan. I know this for a fact because my great (3x) grandfather was a McClellan supporter in 1864 and had 3 cousins who were drafted in 1862 and nobody in the political establishment in the Northern states thought the war was about slavery (the abolishionists were considered fringe, right or wrong), the practice was still common in Northern states, particularly among affluent persons such as General Grant's wife.
> 
> The primary source for your version of Civil War history is Marxist historical revisionists and the Neo-cons that run the Claremont Institute. So which are you, a Neo-con or a Communist? (that was sarcasm, just so you know, though you are basically on their sides on this issue and you definitely debate like on of said groups)


They never seceded over the tariff. Why? Because they voted for the tariff in the first place. 




> First, read my last post again in it's entirety then read the rest of this post - you are very wrong on this issue imo. I'm not from the south, I'm from so cal. I am a "Confederate Sympathizer" because I believe in liberty and state sovereignty. 
> 
> The populace in the south had nothing to do with it, it was the politicians - the south was FORCED to secede over slavery (although even this is probably false) because of politicians - the north tried to change the rules and say they couldn't secede and then the south was like "Ahhh, hell no, we can secede from the north any time we want!!!"
> 
> And THAT is what the war was about, that is why so many people in the south, including blacks, fought the war.
> 
> Also, hope you caught this post:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5904457


If the south really cared about liberty, why did they have slaves? Why did they print money? Southern states never practiced states rights. They used that as a narrative to secede. They had every right to secede. That's not the reason they seceded. If you sympathize with the south, you aren't standing for freedom.

----------


## kahless

> I wonder what the media will have you guys arguing over next week?


If you were paying attention you would see this has moved beyond the media and has become a cultural purge no longer limited to SC.  Cuckold Conservative politicians are in a mad scramble to purge the Confederate flag and re-write a Progressive version of history.  Two parties will become one voice claiming secession and states rights were settled with the civil war.

This Progressive propaganda is in hopes to set the tone of greater federal power over the states and silencing those supporting states rights in the future as being equivalent to racists.

----------


## Carlybee

> If you were paying attention you would see this has moved beyond the media and has become a cultural purge no longer limited to SC.  Cuckold Conservative politicians are in a mad scramble to purge the Confederate flag and re-write a Progressive version of history.  Two parties will become one voice claiming secession and states rights were settled with the civil war.
> 
> This Progressive propaganda is in hopes to set the tone of greater federal power over the states and silencing those supporting states rights in the future as being equivalent to racists.


From "1984"




> The Ministry of Truth was responsible for propaganda and revisionist history.





> The novel is set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstate Oceania in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (or Ingsoc in the government's invented language, Newspeak) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite, that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as "thoughtcrime".




It's being used as a playbook and a lot of suckers are getting played.

----------


## nayjevin

The tone being set here is one of hyperbole.

----------


## dannno

> Your self-branding is ridiculous.
> 
> Just embrace liberty, individuality, productivity, and kindness.  Stop calling yourself a neo confederate, and stop accepting it if someone else describes you as such.  Stop attributing rationale to the actions of humans who lived 150 years ago in order to justify your own opinions.  We don't need the baggage of dead people.  All we need is to continue to set an example with our own words and actions.


I'm not a neo-confederate, I'm a neo-confederate sympathizer. I live in so cal, I surf, and I've never sported the stars and bars or would ever consider it. I do support people who do if they are doing it for the right reasons.

----------


## dannno

> If the south really cared about liberty, why did they have slaves?


A better question is why did only 4% own slaves? If they supported slavery so much, why not have one? I don't think that many did. I think if you went back in time and had some conversations with people from the south they would go differently than you imagine. They supported liberty from central authority.

----------


## AuH20

> A better question is why did only 4% own slaves? If they supported slavery so much, why not have one? I don't think they did. They supported liberty from central authority.


Slaves were extremely expensive to own.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> They never seceded over the tariff. Why? Because they voted for the tariff in the first place.


Where are you getting your information? The tariff of abominations was opposed by more than 90% of the southern state representatives (64 reps voting nay, only 4 voting yea), and also a sizable minority of northern states, including a majority of New England representatives. It barely passed congress by a margin of 105 to 94, and its biggest support base was in New York, New Jersey and my home state of Pennsylvania, it was not well supported even in Abolishionist New England. Are you living in a parallel universe? You can find all of this with a simple search on Wikipedia, though I'd definitely recommend you read beyond it as you are woefully uninformed on this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations

Now, if you're talking about the Morrill Tariff, your point is still erroneous though for different reasons, as that was an issue more specific to Georgia and South Carolina that dovetailed with the issue of slavery for certain specific secessionist politicians (though the two were hardly connected outside of those 2 states), and was particularly not as much of an issue in Virginia, a state that originally was tepid about joining the confederacy until Northern aggression became much more pronounced. Seeing the Confederacy as monolithic is a massive mistake, one that is made by just about every mainstream historian of late.

----------


## mac_hine

> Wasn't it though?
> 
> The SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott that slaves were property.
> 
> The FedGov was moving to "take" property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.


Have you listened to Will Grigg's most recent podcast?

http://kiwi6.com/artists/FreedomZeal...t-june-23-2015

----------


## Carlybee

Interesting video. I don't know how to imbed it.

Karen Cooper of the Virginia Flaggers

https://vimeo.com/126991396

----------


## AuH20

I think my head hurts..............




> *Now take a further step: does the Confederate battle flag or a monument to the Confederacy tell African American citizens that they are inferior? And if so, does that violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?*


It's always the same angle....

----------


## mac_hine

A lot of people like to point to the fact that many of the Confederate memorials and flags were erected in the 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement as evidence that it is racist, however they don't realize that the 1960's was the Centennial of the war which was a huge deal at the time with massive celebrations and parades taking place around the country, with all of the States setting up Centennial Commissions and passing legislation to commemorate the States veterans and soldiers that were called to service to protect their States from invasion. The Confederate flag had virtually no negative connotations then, neither did it in the 80's when America was all watching the The Dukes of Hazzard, or in the 70's when they were all going to Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts and etc...

In fact in the 1960's the Confederate battle flag was so popular during the Centennial that even civil rights groups and anti-war organizations adopted it to show Southern solidarity and fight for a "New South" against other racist pro-segregation groups that were also trying to use the flag. Groups like the Southern Student Organizing Committee (SSOC) and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) both used the Confederate battle flag in their logos, but of course nobody is taught about them in school today, and only about the pro-segregation groups using the flag. The former group actually urged Southerners to "secede" from racism and the Vietnam War, and the latter group was actually infiltrated by the FBI by order the President to spy on their strategy which helped lead to the groups demise.

[Pictured is the logo of the Southern Student Organizing Committee during the Civil Rights Movement]

----------


## dannno

> Slaves were extremely expensive to own.


Then why would most of the people in the South support slavery if it was cheap labor only accessible to the rich? Even in So cal just about anybody can pay an illegal alien to do their landscaping or some such. A lot of people in so cal are against illegal immigration even though it is labor that is accessible to them. I have a hard time believing people in the south really liked slavery all that much. 

Also, are you saying they were not profitable?

Most slaves were bought on bonds, so the owners had to make a monthly payment not a lump sum payment, thus making it affordable for those with less means.

----------


## Carlybee

> I wonder what the media will have you guys arguing over next week?


The banning of the Gadsen flag

----------


## AuH20

> Then why would most of the people in the South support slavery if it was cheap labor only accessible to the rich? Even in So cal just about anybody can pay an illegal alien to do their landscaping or some such. 
> 
> Also, are you saying they were not profitable?
> 
> Most slaves were bought on bonds, so the owners had to make a monthly payment not a lump sum payment, thus making it affordable for those with less means.


I'm saying it was a luxury item not accessible to the common folk. As far as Southerners 'supporting' slavery, I think it was more of a generational acceptance of economic activity as opposed to a deep seeded hatred of blacks.

----------


## KingNothing

> The tone being set here is one of hyperbole.


People are conflating issues, because progressives and cultural marxists have conflated issues on our behalf.

I see no reason why we should defend a flag because progressives say that people who defend the flag are racists and that these racists also defend secession, states rights, and gun rights, and, therefore, the inverse is true -- that those who defend secession, states rights, and gun rights also necessarily defend a particular flag, which makes proponents of secession, states rights, and gun rights racist.

It is preposterous.  There's no reason for us to play that game.  I refuse to conflate these issues.  A flag is just a flag.  It doesn't matter to me.  Secession, states rights, and gun rights do, though.  And the notion that defending those things that form the fabric of America makes someone a racist is just insane.  At their core, and at America's core, is the belief in the individual.  Proponents of individualism, by definition, cannot be racist!  As Ron always says, we are the anti-racists!

The arguments must be broken apart, and attacked piece by piece.  When we allow progressives to conflate all of these issues, we cannot win.

----------


## dannno

> I'm saying it was a luxury item not accessible to the common folk. As far as Southerners 'supporting' slavery, I think it was more of a generational acceptance of economic activity as opposed to a deep seeded hatred of blacks.


But dey took r jobs!

----------


## kahless

> A lot of people like to point to the fact that many of the Confederate memorials and flags were erected in the 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement as evidence that it is racist, however they don't realize that the 1960's was the Centennial of the war which was a huge deal at the time with massive celebrations and parades taking place around the country, with all of the States setting up Centennial Commissions and passing legislation to commemorate the States veterans and soldiers that were called to service to protect their States from invasion. The Confederate flag had virtually no negative connotations then, neither did it in the 80's when America was all watching the The Dukes of Hazzard, or in the 70's when they were all going to Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts and etc...


How times have changed.







> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...mpaign-button/
> It’s unclear if the Clinton-Gore Confederate flag campaign button that has been prominent on social media was an official part of their 1992 presidential campaign.
> .....
> 
> In 1987, then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton signed Act 116. It had little consequences other than to reaffirm the state’s language that honored the stars on the Arkansas flag as commemorating the Confederate flag. The act specifically says, “The blue star above the word ‘ARKANSAS’ is to commemorate the Confederate States of America.”

----------


## nayjevin

> *Now take a further step: does the Confederate battle flag or a monument to the Confederacy tell African American citizens that they are inferior? And if so, does that violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?*


Distinguish between these two scenarios:

Flag flying over government building says: "HEY AFRICANS: YOU ARE INFERIOR!"  

All but one african american considers this a joke.

Flag flying over government building is yellow.  

1 african american interprets this to mean that government/legislators/society thinks he is inferior.

How do you like symbols?

----------


## Natural Citizen

Hm. I wonder when they'll get around to rescribbling the textbooks as well. That's a serious question.

----------


## Smitty

Placating the faux outrage of the SJW's is a never ending, very low paying job. The more I see the more I'm convinced that there's no good reason to become involved in American politics.

Maybe someday in the future there will be a reason, but at this point all it consists of is endless apologies and posturing.

There's just simply too much noise for any truth to be heard.

----------


## mac_hine

> Lincoln got none of those delegates due to the Morrill tariff and other fees that essentially doubled the taxation of the south.





> In 1824 Northern manufacturing states and the Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay began to push for high, protective tariffs. These were strongly opposed by the South. The Southern economy was largely agricultural and geared to exporting a large portion of its cotton and tobacco crops to Europe. In the 1850’s the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82% of U. S. exports. They were largely dependent, however, on Europe or the North for the manufactured goods needed for both agricultural production and consumer needs. Northern states received about 20% of the South’s agricultural production. The vast majority of export volume went to Europe. A protective tariff was then a substantial benefit to Northern manufacturing states, but meant considerable economic hardship for the agricultural South
> Northern political dominance enabled Clay and his allies in Congress to pass a tariff averaging 35% late in 1824. This was the cause of economic boom in the North, but economic hardship and political agitation in the South. South Carolina was especially hard hit, the State’s exports falling 25% over the next two years. In 1828 in a demonstration of unabashed partisanship and unashamed greed the Northern dominated Congress raised the average tariff level to 50%. Despite strong Southern agitation for lower tariffs the Tariff of 1832 only nominally reduced the effective tariff rate and brought no relief to the South. These last two tariffs are usually termed in history as the Tariffs of Abomination.
> 
> This led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832 when South Carolina called a state convention and “nullified” the 1828 and 1832 tariffs as unjust and unconstitutional. The resulting constitutional crisis came very near provoking armed conflict at that time. Through the efforts of former U. S. Vice President and U. S. Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, a compromise was effected in 1833 which over a few years reduced the tariff back to a normal level of about 15%. Henry Clay and the Whigs were not happy, however, to have been forced into a compromise by Calhoun and South Carolina’s Nullification threat. The tariff, however, remained at a level near 15% until 1860. A lesson in economics, regional sensitivities, and simple fairness should have been learned from this confrontation, but if it was learned, it was ignored by ambitious political and business factions and personalities that would come on the scene of American history in the late 1850’s.
> 
> High protective tariffs were always the policy of the old Whig Party and had become the policy of the new Republican Party that replaced it. A recession beginning around 1857 gave the cause of protectionism an additional political boost in the Northern industrial states.
> 
> In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.
> 
> ...


UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES OF THE UNCIVIL WAR
A Brief Explanation of the Impact of the Morrill Tariff
http://www.ashevilletribune.com/arch...%20Tariff.html

----------


## AuH20

> UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES OF THE UNCIVIL WAR
> A Brief Explanation of the Impact of the Morrill Tariff
> http://www.ashevilletribune.com/arch...%20Tariff.html


Slavery came to the forefront of the national discussion only 3 years into the conflict. The Union could care less about slaves, until it became beneficial to frame their motivations as such.

----------


## mac_hine

> Slavery came to the forefront of the national discussion only 3 years into the conflict. The Union could care less about slaves, until it became beneficial to frame their motivations as such.


Agreed. Sadly Boobus Americanus is ignorant of history.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Agreed. Sadly Boobus Americanus is ignorant of history.


Largely by design. The Marxist revisionism of history that began in the 1960s had a curious parallel to the so-called 1960s Civil Rights movement, so much so that the 2 became conflated pretty quickly both among supporters and detractors. What is curious to note is that Marx himself was a huge fan of Lincoln, this book gets into it quite accurately: http://www.amazon.com/Red-Republican.../dp/0595446981

----------


## mac_hine

Libertarians and the Confederate Battle Flag
By Thomas DiLorenzo
April 19, 2001   https://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/04/...federate-flag/




> In his book What They Fought For, 1861-1865, historian James McPherson reported on his reading of more than 25,000 letters and more than 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the War for Southern Independence and concluded that Confederate soldiers (very few of whom owned slaves) "fought for liberty and independence from what they regarded as a tyrannical government."
> 
> The letters and diaries of many Confederate soldiers "bristled with the rhetoric of liberty and self government," writes McPherson, and spoke of a fear of being "subjugated" and "enslaved" by a tyrannical federal government. Sound familiar?
> 
> Many Confederate soldiers thought of the war as "the Second war for American Independence." A Texas cavalryman told his sister in a letter that just as earlier Americans had "rebelled against King George to establish Liberty and freedom in this western world . . . so we dissolved our alliance with this oppressive foe and are now enlisted in The Holy Cause of Liberty and Independence again."
> 
> An Alabama infantryman wrote his mother, "If the mere imposition of a tax [in 1776] could raise such tumult what should be the result of the terrible system of oppression instituted by the Yankees?"
> 
> Another theme in these letters was that many Confederates believed (and rightly so) that they were fighting to defend their property and families from a hostile invading army. "We are fighting for matters real and tangible . . . our property and our homes," wrote a Texas private in 1864.
> ...

----------


## philipped

Very very interesting debate ITT

----------


## nayjevin

> Very very interesting debate ITT


It is, and the greatest thing to happen for civil war history education that I know of.  Actually seeing some very informed opinions on Facebook, it's strange.

----------


## phill4paul

Alabama caves....



> Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley Orders Confederate Flag Taken Down From Capitol
> 
> Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley ordered the four Confederate flags on the state Capitol grounds in Montgomery to be taken down Wednesday morning, NBC News has learned.
> 
> Bentley's decision comes amid a growing backlash against the rebel banner, which critics say symbolizes a legacy of racism. The Confederate flag has been in the spotlight since the deadly shooting one week ago of nine parishioners at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, by a white gunman.


http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/con...apitol-n380946

----------


## AuH20

This is getting comical. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...rate-flag.html



> The North has the money and the culture, but the South has defined the limits of our politics. That may finally and blessedly be ending.


Money? What money? As a New Yorker, all I see is miles upon miles of Fed created debt and very little agriculture. And let's not even start with culture. This arrogant 'yankee' is standing on a trap door and can't even recognize it.




> *But now that’s changing. Fortunately, the emancipationists control the culture from New York and Hollywood, and they’ve pushed back on the Southerners hard—this too is a huge change from the old days, when for example television networks were extremely careful not to offend Southern tastes. And so even the Southern Baptist Convention has quieted down about same-sex marriage, even if the Republican candidates haven’t.
> *
> But this—this flag business is the first instance I can recall of conservative Republican Southern politicians defying their right-wing base on an issue of first-order emotional importance. It’s important that this isn’t some liberal federal judge ordering the flag removed. It’s Republican politicians doing it.* I’m not saying that to pat them on the back—they’re at least a decade late to be getting anything resembling credit as far as I’m concerned. I’m just observing it as telling: When future David Blights write about how the South started losing its hold on America’s political culture in 2015, they’ll write about this moment, the first time their leaders said to them, “Your position is just too morally undignified for me to defend anymore.”*
> 
> For his part, the actual living David Blight isn’t as hopeful about this as I am. In response to my question, he emailed me yesterday: “This may indeed be a rare moment. But if my work shows anything it might be simply to say beware when right-wing manipulators of historical memory offer reconciliation. They are looking for cover for other and perhaps larger matters.”
> 
> *He’s correct, of course. This massacre is still about guns and terrorism, and it’s about South Carolina’s voter-ID laws too, on which Clementa Pinckney was one of just two favorable votes in the state Senate. All those fights will continue, with the usual achingly slow progress (if progress at all on guns).
> 
> But this is still a big deal. It could usher in a second era of conquest over Southern political hegemony. If that happens, those other fights will be easier to win, eventually, too.*


He's dancing in the endzone when the clock doesn't read zero.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Have you read the secession documents of the States that joined the CSA after Lincoln had raised an invading army?


I'm not arguing about why some people chose the Confederate side, but why the CSA was founded in the first place.  And if you read the secession documents it is clear that they seceded because they didn't want northerners taking away their slaves.




> Slavery existed in the early United States.


But that was not the reason that the colonies broke free of England.  Both sides had slaves anyway.  




> The flag is a symbol of rebellion and disobedience to tyrants. We need more of those everywhere throughout the country. It's pathetic that you've bought into the propaganda and bull$#@! regarding this issue as well.


How is any of that?  And no, I didn't buy into any propaganda, I'm a huge history buff and I did my research.




> It's going to be hard to get jazzed about a candidate who constantly kowtows to every demand of the PC mob, that's for sure.


"PC mob."  Have you ever considered that not every single thing that someone on the left says is automatically wrong?




> Abortion is worse.  Far worse.  There's no consistent way for a consistent liberty lover to defend the Confederacy OR the United States.  Do you disagree?


Not the actions of the current US government.  But the US was founded on the principles of liberty and that is something worth preserving.




> For those of you who don't have a real problem with the U.S flag, but do have a problem with the Confederate. I would like to hear of 1 thing, just 1 thing objectionable the Confederate flag flew over that the Union flag didn't.


It's not about what happened in the four years that the CSA existed, it's about why the nation was formed.




> Those of you that say the Civil War was just about slavery trust your government way too much. The Civil War began because Lincoln won the election without a single delegate from a Southern state. Do a Google image search for "election of 1860".


The South hadn't given any votes to the other abolitionist candidates in the three previous elections.




> It was also because of states rights and resistance to the Federal Government's ever growing hunger for control.


State's rights to continue the institution of slavery.  We're also talking about the same people who railed against the Northern States for nullifying the Fugitive Slave Acts.




> Who has defended the Confederacy? Last I checked we were defending the right to fly the flag.


What do you mean "we."  You certainly aren't talking about me or any of the other liberty-minded folk who see the flag as a symbol of slavery and racism.

 And neocons? Hardly. It's the neocons acquiescing to the PC Police.[/QUOTE]

The average person flying the Confederate flag is the typical Republican voter.  I've known people from Arkansas and Louisiana say that Lincoln shouldn't have intervened when the Southern States seceded but fanatically defend the War in Iraq.




> A better question is why did only 4% own slaves? If they supported slavery so much, why not have one? I don't think that many did.


Because they couldn't afford it?  But who had the political power, the 4% or the 96%?




> I think if you went back in time and had some conversations with people from the south they would go differently than you imagine. They supported liberty from central authority.


One of the tragic parts of the Civil War is that the Confederacy was willing to send hundreds of thousands of young men to their deaths to defend the institution of slavery.  Of course, that's not what the average soldier thought the war was about.




> Largely by design. The Marxist revisionism of history that began in the 1960s had a curious parallel to the *so-called 1960s Civil Rights movement*, so much so that the 2 became conflated pretty quickly both among supporters and detractors.


"so-called"

----------


## William Tell



----------


## PierzStyx

> It wasn't? It has been used as a symbol opposing black civil rights for a long time.


The stupid thing about that is while the Confederate battle flag was a symbol of anti-black activity it was those waving the US  flag that were actually denying blacks their civil liberties.

----------


## Crashland

> Wrong, the South felt they had the right to secede over ____________ because it is a state's rights issue. It didn't matter what the issue was. In fact, only 4% of the white population in the south owned slaves at the time and I would imagine most of the populace in the south probably were against slavery. They just wanted to retain the right to secede.  It was likely the establishment and banks that were keeping slavery legal in the south because of the debt bonds that required payment. It was a too big to fail situation for the banks. When the establishment realized it was time to end slavery, instead of bailing out the slaves they took it as an opportunity to destroy the Constitution and start a war that they could profit from.


The south seceded because they wanted to retain the right to secede? Circular reasoning...

Actually, it does matter what they wanted to secede over. The reason it  matters is that people will rightly associate the rebellion with both  the secession as well as the reason for the secession. If the flag is the symbol of the rebellion then it can easily represent both things, and in practice it has been used for both. Yes, slavery would have gone away in the South eventually even if the South had seceded, but we need to stop pretending that the rebellion had nothing to do with slavery, and stop judging people for associating the two. The sooner we separate the issues of states rights and slavery, the better, and the confederate flag is a symbol that binds them together like krazy glue. Don't understand why we should want to continue using such a symbol when it actually harms our ability to sell federalism.

----------


## Carlybee

Houston ISD considering changing schools named after Confederates war heroes.  Last year they spent $250,000 to change the mascot of the Lamar Redskins.   People wonder why school taxes are high.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

For reference, here are the causes for secession that were given by some of the seceding states.

But clearly, the only reason I think that they seceded over slavery is because I'm part of the PC crowd.

----------


## Carlybee

> Distinguish between these two scenarios:
> 
> Flag flying over government building says: "HEY AFRICANS: YOU ARE INFERIOR!"  
> 
> All but one african american considers this a joke.
> 
> Flag flying over government building is yellow.  
> 
> 1 african american interprets this to mean that government/legislators/society thinks he is inferior.
> ...


Now who is dishing out the hyperbole?

----------


## nayjevin

> Now who is dishing out the hyperbole?


You'll find plenty of examples of my hyperbole and hypocrisy, but using a life-boat scenario is not hyperbole, it is a philosophical tool for illustration.

----------


## Carlybee

> You'll find plenty of examples of my hyperbole and hypocrisy, but using a life-boat scenario is not hyperbole, it is a philosophical tool for illustration.


Point taken

----------


## hells_unicorn

> For reference, here are the causes for secession that were given by *some of the seceding states*.


I covered this already, conflating the rhetoric of certain South Carolina and Georgia politicians who were combining the tariff situation with the abolishionist movement with the entire Confederacy is a fallacious understanding of history. It has little bearing on why Virginia ended up joining the confederacy, nor does it account for how widely slavery was practiced in the north prior and immediately following Lincoln's politician shenanigans.

P.S. -  Any intellectually curious individuals might want to pay close attention to Virginia's contribution to the "Declaration of Causes", as it references slavery one time as something practiced by states other than itself. When considering this, we only have 4 out of 11 states with written testimony on the slave issue, that's pretty well short of a majority.




> But clearly, the only reason I think that they seceded over slavery is because I'm part of the PC crowd.


Yep, you just nailed it buddy, you want me to tell you what prize you've won? The admiration of every brainless Yankee who thought that Lincoln was some sort of saint for murdering more Americans than any other person in history. It's really telling when a Pennsylvanian has to correct someone from South Carolina about Civil War history. 




> "so-called"


You got it, SO CALLED, 100%. Want to hear me say it again? Better yet, do you want me to walk you through some nice statistics regarding the divorce rate, the number of children born out of wedlock in urban black families, and black on black crime/murder before and after the Civil Rights movement and Lyndon Johnson's presidency? I must warn you, the truth can be an extremely painful thing if you're not ready for it.

----------


## Carlybee

I can't believe I am quoting a Democrat here. This guy probably just hammered a nail in his political career.





> .    Democrat Jim Webb: Don't tear the Confederate flag down, history not just hate
> BY PAUL BEDARD | JUNE 24, 2015 | 4:21 PM 
> 
> While it has been used for racist purposes, Jim Webb conceded, the confederate flag should not be used "as a political symbol that divides us," he said. 
> 
> Likely Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb, a highly decorated Vietnam War vet and former Navy secretary, is interrupting the national condemnation of the Confederate Battle Flag and calling on both sides to consider the full history of the flag and Civil War before junking it.
> 
> "This is an emotional time and we all need to think through these issues with a care that recognizes the need for change but also respects the complicated history of the Civil War," he said in a note posted to Facebook.
> 
> ...

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I can't believe I am quoting a Democrat here. This guy probably just hammered a nail in his political career.


As much as I consider Jim Webb a political enemy, I sympathize with him and other old school southern democrats, they've been wrongly maligned as bigots and subjected to a witch-hunt that rivals that original Malleus Maleficarum and the Spanish Inquisition combined. When you don't stand up to fanatics and lunatics, you will find yourselves governed by them. Good on Webb for standing up to this nonsense.

----------


## Crashland

> Yep, you just nailed it buddy, you want me to tell you what prize you've won? The admiration of every brainless Yankee who thought that Lincoln was some sort of saint for murdering more Americans than any other person in history. It's really telling when a Pennsylvanian has to correct someone from South Carolina about Civil War history.


(And do you know what *you've* won? The admiration of every racist looking to justify slavery under states rights. See, I can use the same logic as you.)
As far as I know, no one here is advocating racism, and I haven't heard anyone on this board defend Lincoln either. Nor would the admiration of any such persons have anything to do with the merit of the claim.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I covered this already, conflating the rhetoric of certain South Carolina and Georgia politicians who were combining the tariff situation with the abolishionist movement with the entire Confederacy is a fallacious understanding of history. It has little bearing on why Virginia ended up joining the confederacy, nor does it account for how widely slavery was practiced in the north prior and immediately following Lincoln's politician shenanigans.


Why don't they talk about tariffs?  They just talk about slavery.




> P.S. -  Any intellectually curious individuals might want to pay close attention to Virginia's contribution to the "Declaration of Causes", as it references slavery one time as something practiced by states other than itself. When considering this, we only have 4 out of 11 states with written testimony on the slave issue, that's pretty well short of a majority.


"Oppression of the slave-holding Southern States."  They could have just said "Oppression of the Southern States."  Anyway, the 4 states include South Carolina, which started it all, and they were only concerned with slavery in their document.  Mississippi is the most honest and straightforward.  The other 6 out of 11 states didn't have a list of causes for secession that I could find.




> Yep, you nailed it hear, you want me to tell you what prize you've won? The admiration of every brainless Yankee who thought that Lincoln was some sort of saint. It's really telling when a Pennsylvanian has to correct someone from South Carolina about Civil War history.


I'm actually from Kentucky originally but my ancestors were southern unionists and no one in my immediate family lives North of the Ohio river.

Ever considered that this has nothing to do with anything PC?  You may or may not know that I am one of the more socially conservative posters here.  I ate at Chick Fil A during and after the controversy over gay marriage.  So my opinion of the Confederate Flag has nothing to do with what liberal elitists have to say.




> You got it, SO CALLED, 100%. Want to hear me say it again? Better yet, do you want me to walk you through some nice statistics regarding the divorce rate and black on black crime/murder before and after the Civil Rights movement and Lyndon Johnson's presidency? I must warn you, the truth can be an extremely painful thing if you're not ready for it.


I'm getting a feeling that you've never actually met anyone who lived through segregation?

----------


## Crashland

Please forgive the rest of us for taking the list of grievances to actually mean what they say. You need to read those declarations with some serious virtual reality goggles in order to see it and blame all of the slavery references to mere political rhetoric that is _really_ all about tariffs. No one is even claiming that it was entirely about slavery. Yes, tariffs were a part of it. Yes, nullification was part of it. But to take those issues and blow them way out of proportion with respect to slavery is not right. Slavery was a central issue that was a very important reason why a lot of the states seceded. Merely acknowledging that fact does not make you a politically correct SJW, nor does it endorse anything that the North did.

----------


## Southron

> Please forgive the rest of us for taking the list of grievances to actually mean what they say. You need to read those declarations with some serious virtual reality goggles in order to see it and blame all of the slavery references to mere political rhetoric that is _really_ all about tariffs. No one is even claiming that it was entirely about slavery. Yes, tariffs were a part of it. Yes, nullification was part of it. But to take those issues and blow them way out of proportion with respect to slavery is not right. Slavery was a central issue that was a very important reason why a lot of the states seceded. Merely acknowledging that fact does not make you a politically correct SJW, nor does it endorse anything that the North did.


Slavery was never seriously threatened. 

And why are the reasons that North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas seceded never mentioned, 3 of which provided almost all of the Confederate fighting force?

----------


## AuH20

> Please forgive the rest of us for taking the list of grievances to actually mean what they say. You need to read those declarations with some serious virtual reality goggles in order to see it and blame all of the slavery references to mere political rhetoric that is _really_ all about tariffs. No one is even claiming that it was entirely about slavery. Yes, tariffs were a part of it. Yes, nullification was part of it. But to take those issues and blow them way out of proportion with respect to slavery is not right. Slavery was a central issue that was a very important reason why a lot of the states seceded. Merely acknowledging that fact does not make you a politically correct SJW, nor does it endorse anything that the North did.


Slavery was secondary to the damage incurred by Morrill Tariff. The Morrill Tariff and it's disastrous economic impact is what galvanized the drive to secession. The Northern states had no real concerns about slavery until about 3 years into the war, so their abolitionist motivations ring very hollow.   

No one here is excusing the South's practice of slavery, but it's fairly obvious that the TPTB have deliberately rewritten the historical account to hide the legitimate grievance on the part of the Southern states. Only until recently did some brave historians started to dig through the various newspapers of records and personal letters, did we start to extract the real version of what transpired.

----------


## phill4paul

For those interested...

  North Carolina on the Eve of Secession: Boyd, William Kenneth, 1879-1938.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/boydw/boydw.html

  I believe the final sentence sums it up well.




> Not until President Lincoln's requisition on the State for troops after the firing on Fort Sumter did secession triumph in North Carolina; and then because the only alternative was that of fighting against the South.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Who has defended the Confederacy?


I have, and will continue to do so until people start understanding history - which is to say I'll be doing this forever.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Why don't they talk about tariffs?  They just talk about slavery.


Are you kidding me? The Morrill Tariffs were spoken about heavily in conjunction with secession in both Georgia and South Carolina, and a clear reading of Georgia's declaration on the link you've provided shows that manufacturing industrialists and Republican politicians were in full collusion on undermining what Georgia saw as its economic security through legislation. The Morrill Tariff itself was not mentioned by name, but the general demeanor of the declaration cites economic concerns well beyond slavery, though it also includes content dealing with slavery. Again, why are only 4 states considered as valid opinions when there are 7 other states involved? Probably because it suits a particularly historical bias me thinks.




> "Oppression of the slave-holding Southern States."  They could have just said "Oppression of the Southern States."  Anyway, the 4 states include South Carolina, which started it all, and they were only concerned with slavery in their document.  Mississippi is the most honest and straightforward.  The other 6 out of 11 states didn't have a list of causes for secession that I could find.


I'm not disagreeing with you that South Carolina bears some level of responsibility for the Civil War as they were so agitated that they took Lincoln's bait and shelled Fort Sumter rather than waiting for a sizable plurality of northern journalists who were anti-war (rightly so) to undermine Lincoln's tyrannical designs and power consolidation. By the way, arguing that Virginia should have omitted the word slavery from their declaration with regard to the other states is ludicrous, as it would be a historical falsehood and would like draw even more ire from self-righteous historical revisionists like yourself. The fact that Virginia didn't list slavery itself as its reason for getting involved disqualifies them as being part of the Big 4 that you are so obsessed over.




> I'm actually from Kentucky originally but my ancestors were southern unionists and no one in my immediate family lives North of the Ohio river.


Nice to meet you, I'm a 6th generation Pennsylvanian who has no roots south of here and my ancestors were northern anti-war Copperhead Democrats, mostly Irish, who died in great numbers because they couldn't buy their way out of Lincoln's draft, my great (x3) grandfather supported McClellan in 1864 and witnessed what the Union army did to people who either tried to avoid the draft or desert the army they were forced into. While many of the people who died that came fresh off the boat from the old country could barely tell a Democrat from a Whig/Republican, my family knew full well what the newly born GOP was about, and also how the corrupt banking interests and rail companies that bought much of the coal they mined helped put Lincoln in power.




> Ever considered that this has nothing to do with anything PC?  You may or may not know that I am one of the more socially conservative posters here.  I ate at Chick Fil A during and after the controversy over gay marriage.  So my opinion of the Confederate Flag has nothing to do with what liberal elitists have to say.


PC is not unique to sodomites and hippies, it's actually pervasive in most of modern conservatism, which has been heavily infiltrated by Trotskyites and remnants of the fanatical transcendental movement that came out of New England Unitarianism. You may not think you're views on Civil War history are tied in with cultural Marxism, but the people who printed the textbooks you built them off of are a different matter altogether. And for the record, absent of your views having anything to do with PC, they are still wrong.




> I'm getting a feeling that you've never actually met anyone who lived through segregation?


Never been to a segregated state for more than a week's time, though my parents knew a few who moved up to Philadelphia in the 1970s. They were generally upright and decent folks who had jobs. However, most of the people who were bused into my schools growing up were products of the post-Civil Rights period, and were largely self-entitled at best, and gang-banger types looking to stick it to whitey the rest of the time, which was a major catalyst in forming my views on the "so called" Civil Rights movement insofar as what it accomplished, though I'm not fully sold on Martin Luther King Jr. being some commie plant the way segregationists suggest, I'd wager he was probably just a heretical Baptist minister with an idealistic streak that got in bed with the wrong people.

----------


## Crashland

> Slavery was secondary to the damage incurred by Morrill Tariff. The Morrill Tariff and it's disastrous economic impact is what galvanized the drive to secession. The Northern states had no real concerns about slavery until about 3 years into the war, so their abolitionist motivations ring very hollow.   
> 
> No one here is excusing the South's practice of slavery, but it's fairly obvious that the TPTB have deliberately rewritten the historical account to hide the legitimate grievance on the part of the Southern states. Only until recently did some brave historians started to dig through the various newspapers of records and personal letters, did we start to extract the real version of what transpired.


No one here is saying that tariffs and other issues were not among the reasons for the secession movement. Even if I were to grant you for the sake of argument that the slavery issue was "secondary" to the tariffs, it should still be obvious that slavery was still a very important source of contention which the states for some reason deemed important enough to go on and on about in their list of grievances. Just reading what's on the page. There's a limit to how much you can spin it all away and still maintain intellectual honesty.

----------


## Carlybee

> I have, and will continue to do so until people start understanding history - which is to say I'll be doing this forever.



I was referring to the Confederacy as defined by many on here as being about nothing but slavery.  For the record I think the keeping of slaves was a horrible practice. Nothing can ever justify it. I am however able to differentiate the difference between a flag and a repugnant practice which as we all know was not limited to the South.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Just embrace liberty, individuality, productivity, and kindness.  Stop calling yourself a neo confederate, and stop accepting it if someone else describes you as such.  Stop attributing rationale to the actions of humans who lived 150 years ago in order to justify your own opinions.  We don't need the baggage of dead people.  All we need is to continue to set an example with our own words and actions.


Yea!

Because how people understand history in no way influences their political views...

That's why governments have historically had no interest in altering the teaching of history to demonize their opponents and glorify themselves...

----------


## Crashland

> Again, why are only 4 states considered as valid opinions when there are 7 other states involved? Probably because it suits a particularly historical bias me thinks.


How many southern states can you find which actually produced a declaration of causes for secession that did not include reference to slavery? Let's see if you can find more than 3

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I was referring to the Confederacy as defined by many on here as being about nothing but slavery.


Gotcha




> For the record I think the keeping of slaves was a horrible practice. Nothing can ever justify it.


Of course




> I am however able to differentiate the difference between a flag and a repugnant practice which as we all know was not limited to the South.


Too bad that the howling mob can't do the same.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Please forgive the rest of us for taking the list of grievances to actually mean what they say. You need to read those declarations with some serious virtual reality goggles in order to see it and blame all of the slavery references to mere political rhetoric that is _really_ all about tariffs.


You want to chill out on the sarcasm and sass a little bit mister sassy-pants? The point is not that slavery wasn't an issue regarding these 4 particular states, the issue was whether or not this counts for the whole confederacy, and whether this is cause to ignore the Northern aggressors of their moral wrongs in creating the current mess that we call race relations, which is at the real crux of this "banning the Virginia Battle Flag in the name of Newspeak/Doublespeak" bull$#@! we're seeing unfold.  




> No one is even claiming that it was entirely about slavery.


I can list about 4 or 5 people posting on this thread who beg to differ, to speak nothing for that view dominating the so-called news cycle right this very moment.




> Yes, tariffs were a part of it. Yes, nullification was part of it. But to take those issues and blow them way out of proportion with respect to slavery is not right.


We have 4 states that have listed slavery as a cause for secession, 2 of them while also listing economic grievances apart from slavery (I'm not as familiar with the Texas and Mississippi declarations and want to read them more closely before commenting on them), and we have a 5th one that is only referencing slavery in those states apart from itself, and 6 other states that are unspoken for. How is anything being blown out of proportion here again?




> Slavery was a central issue that was a very important reason why a lot of the states seceded.


It was cited in 4 states' declaration as a reason (among others), there were 11 states involved, not counting Missouri and Maryland which were preemptively struck by Lincoln's military in a manner that would make George W. Bush do a triple take.




> Merely acknowledging that fact does not make you a politically correct SJW, nor does it endorse anything that the North did.


The "civil war was about slavery" cliche is the bloody shirt that is waved to excuse EVERYTHING the North did, including to its own people in the name of maintaining the war effort, which is where my family's grievances come into play. In principle, I'm more sympathetic to the abolishionists as I think they had the morally right stance on the issue of slavery itself, particularly the cruelty of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and how it routinely violated the Moral Law as espoused in the Pentateuch regarding kidnapping, an offense punishable by death according to theonomic principles. However, when I compare how most of Europe ended the slave trade versus how America accomplished it, I'd sooner whistle Dixie and shout "To hell with the union" than lend credence to the mob of brainwashed fools trying to erase the truth from America's history.




> How many southern states can you find which actually produced a declaration of causes for secession that did not include reference to slavery? Let's see if you can find more than 3


What the hell does it matter if they simply reference it, particularly if they reference it as existing in other states with a dispassionate tone? You're setting the bar so unrealistically high that I'm debating whether even talking to you on this subject will be productive. But to provide some much needed nuance to this discussion, Virginia references the practice once as being practiced in other states, North Carolina was more interested in the militaristic aggression that Virginia also cites, and I just perused the Florida declaration and every reference to slavery (there are many) is tied in with economics, particularly the election of an uneducated nobody (Lincoln) by a bunch of corporate and political cronies. Come to think of it, every single declaration I've read has even more emphasis on the economic divide between north and south than it does on the slavery question, which was my principle point alongside the fact that Lincoln's government didn't give a rat's ass about the slaves until after it served their economic ends, which is implied in the Florida declaration on such points as *"The members of the Republican party has denied that the party will oppose the admission of any new state where slavery shall be tolerated."* and *"It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act."*

----------


## r3volution 3.0

*TL;DR = the South seceded to escape the Republicans' mercantilist economic policies, not to preserve slavery*

Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address:




> An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities.  There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or  navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American  Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite  good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of  dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those  States, we must prepare to meet the emergency and to maintain, by  the final arbitrament of the sword, the position which we have assumed  among the nations of the earth. ...The cultivation of our fields has  progressed as heretofore, and even should we be involved in war there  would be no considerable diminution in the production of the staples  which have constituted our exports and in which the commercial world has  an interest scarcely less than our own. This common interest of the  producer and consumer can only be interrupted by an exterior force which  should obstruct its transmission to foreign markets--a course of  conduct which would be as unjust toward us as it would be detrimental to  manufacturing and commercial interests abroad. Should reason guide the  action of the Government from which we have separated, a policy so  detrimental to the civilized world, the Northern States included, could  not be dictated by even the strongest desire to inflict injury upon us;  but otherwise a terrible responsibility will rest upon it, and the  suffering of millions will bear testimony to the folly and wickedness of  our aggressors.


 

 From the "Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States," December 25 1860:






> The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position  towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great  Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the  same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament.  “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either;  and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole  judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare”  requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a  consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are  compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the  Revolution of 1776...And so with the Southern States, towards the  Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority  in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect  them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the  North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed  our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last  forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have  been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The  people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for  revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by  prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and  manufactures....Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards  the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern  States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but  after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the  North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the  General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their  growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The  agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign  commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on.  Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated...No man can for a moment  believe, that our ancestors intended to establish over their posterity,  exactly the same sort of Government they had overthrown. The great  object of the Constitution of the United States, in its internal  operation, was, doubtless, to secure the great end of the Revolution —  –a limited free Government– — a Government limited to those matters  only, which were general and common to all portions of the United  States. All sectional or local interests were to be left to the States.  By no other arrangement, would they obtain free Government, by a  Constitution common to so vast a Confederacy. Yet by gradual and steady  encroachments on the part of the people of the North, and acquiescence  on the part of the South, the limitations in the Constitution have been  swept away; and the Government of the United States has become  consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its  operations...


 

 From the "Georgia Declaration of Secession," January 29 1861:






> The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on  the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first  years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing  interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the  expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks  sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet  continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.  The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign  shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress  granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly  of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without  diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust  advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their  business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in  throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their  seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000  annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in  connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also  succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in  postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about  $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name  of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same  struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and  special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and  Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held  great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to  its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon  special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and  thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They  pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country,  the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other  countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time  of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our  war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for  many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole  country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for  Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country  had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After  having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon  their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was  passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and  free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the  verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States  sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon  the direct issue, none at all.


 

 From Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21 1861:




> All the essentials of the old Constitution, which have endeared  it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and  perpetuated.... So, taking the whole new Constitution, I have no  hesitancy in giving it as my judgment, that it is decidedly better than  the old. [Applause.] Allow me briefly to allude to some of these  improvements. The question of building up class interests, or  fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the  exercise of the revenue power, *which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution*,  is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no  duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any  trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system,  stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor  and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they  may be engaged in


 

 From Robert Toomb's Speech before the Georgia Legislature, November 13 1860:






> The instant the Government was organized, at the very first  Congress, the Northern States evinced a general desire and purpose to  use it for their own benefit, and to pervert its powers for sectional  advantage, and they have steadily pursued that policy to this day. They  demanded a monopoly of the business of ship- building, and got a  prohibition against the sale of foreign ships to citizens of the United  States, which exists to this day. They demanded a monopoly of the  coasting trade, in order to get higher freights than they could get in  open competition with the carriers of the world. Congress gave it to  them, and they yet hold this monopoly. And now, to-day, if a foreign  vessel in Savannah offer[sl to take your rice, cotton, grain or lumber  to New-York, or any other American port, for nothing, your laws prohibit  it, in order that Northern ship-owners may get enhanced prices for  doing your carrying. This same shipping interest, with cormorant  rapacity, have steadily burrowed their way through your legislative  halls, until they have saddled the agricultural classes with a large  portion of the legitimate expenses of their own business. We pay a  million of dollars per annum for the lights which guide them into and  out of your ports. We built and kept up, at the cost of at least another  million a year, hospitals for their sick and disabled seamen when they  wear them out and cast them ashore. We pay half a million per annum to  support and bring home those they cast away in foreign lands. They  demand, and have received, millions of the public money to increase the  safety of harbors, and lessen the danger of navigating our rivers. All  of which expenses legitimately fall upon their business, and should come  out of their own pockets, instead of a common treasury. Even the  fishermen of Massachusetts and New England demand and receive from the  public treasury about half a million of dollars per annum as a pure  bounty on their business of catching codfish. The North, at the very  first Congress, demanded and received bounties under the name of  protection, for every trade, craft, and calling which they pursue, and  there is not an artisan in brass, or iron, or wood, or weaver, or  spinner in wool or cotton, or a calicomaker, or iron-master, or a  coal-owner, in all of the Northern or Middle States, who has not  received what he calls the protection of his government on his industry  to the extent of from fifteen to two hundred per cent from the year 1791  to this day. They will not strike a blow, or stretch a muscle, without  bounties from the government. No wonder they cry aloud for the glorious  Union; they have the same reason for praising it, that craftsmen of  Ephesus had for shouting, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," whom all  Asia and the world worshipped. By it they got their wealth; by it they  levy tribute on honest labor. It is true that this policy has been  largely sustained by the South; it is true that the present tariff was  sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a  reduction - a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue; but  the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public  expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public  expenditure; and at the last session of Congress they brought in and  passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was  enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty  per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the  table of the Senate. It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it  united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has  swept the country. There were thousands of protectionists in  Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not  abolitionists. There were thousands of abolitionists who were free  traders. The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of  their principles. The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists;  the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists. The result of  this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill - the robber and the  incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South.  Thus stands the account between the North and the South. Under its  ordinary and most favorable action, bounties and protection to every  interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty  millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions  out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making  the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry,  and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our  lands.


 

 In a little known fact, New York City almost seceded along with the South. Why? From a speech by New York City Mayor Fernando Wood, January 6 1861:




> It would seem that a dissolution of the Federal Union is  inevitable...With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have  friendly relations and a common sympathy...Our ships have penetrated to every clime, and so have New York capital, energy and enterprise found their way to every State,  and, indeed, to almost every county and town of the American Union. If  we have derived sustenance from the Union, so have we in return  disseminated blessings for the common benefit of all. Therefore, New  York has a right to expect, and should endeavor to preserve a continuance of uninterrupted intercourse with every section...As a free city, with but nominal duty on imports,  her local Government could be supported without taxation upon her  people. Thus we could live free from taxes, and have cheap goods nearly  duty free. In this she would have the whole and united support of the Southern States, as well as all the other States to whose interests and rights under the Constitution she has always been true.


 

Comments from Lord Action, great English classical liberal and contemporary of the American Civil War:






> Thus it came to pass that the South, to protect themselves,  sought to restrain the central power, while the North wished to make it  superior to all restraint. To one party it was a sword, to the other a  shield. And so it happened that the long reign of Southern politics at  Washington, down to the year 1860, provoked no rupture, because they  desired self-government, and not empire; whereas the victory of the  North in the election of Mr. Lincoln gave at once the signal for  dissolving the Union...At length certain measures for the protection of  manufactures in the East aroused a united opposition in the agricultural  states, who were to pay for the benefit of the others. That was the  first threatening of the storm that did not burst for thirty  years...Further, [in the Confederate Constitution] definite safeguards  were provided against the abuses which had sapped liberty in the Union.  One of these was the imposition of taxes for the advantage of interests  which were confined to certain states, and at the expense of the others.  Therefore it was enacted that "no bounties shall be granted from the  treasury, nor shall any duties or taxes on importations be levied to  promote or foster any branch of industry." One great means of throwing  influence into the hands of the central government had been internal  improvements. It was enacted that they should never be carried out by  the Confederate government. Finally, the abuse of patronage had  furnished the President with such opportunities for corruption that I  have heard as many as 60,000 offices changed hands as often as a term  expired. It was enacted that none but cabinet ministers should be  removed from office without the cause of the removal being submitted to  the Senate. These were the political ideas of the Confederacy, and they  justify me, I think, in saying that history can show no instance of so  great an effort made by republicans to remedy the faults of that form of  government.


 

 Lord Action's letter to Robert E. Lee in 1866:






> Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our  liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake  which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which  was saved at Waterloo.


 

 Now let's compare the CSA Constitution with the USA Constitution, and see how the Southern design differs and what that tells us about the South's motives:



*Preamble:*


*USA:* "We the people of the United States, in order to  form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic  tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,  and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do  ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of  America."

*CSA:* "We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character,  in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice,  insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to  ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty  God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States  of America. 

*Comments:* The CSA Constitution omits reference to ":the  general welfare" because that clause had been abused to justify the  Republicans' mercantilist policy. Further note the emphasis on the  "sovereign and independent character" of the states.

*Article I, Section 2*

Here the CSA Constitution adds the following clause, which has no parallel in the US Constitution:*

CSA:* "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker  and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except  that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting  solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of  two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof. *

Comments:* This is in effect a formalized right to  nullification, which is informed by South Carolina's experience with the  "Tariff of Abominations" in earlier decades, when the State government  threatened to jail any federal official who enforced the hated tax.  
*
Article I, Section 8*


*USA:* "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect  taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the  common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

*CSA:* "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and  excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common  defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but  no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or  taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster  any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

*Comments:* Once again, the CSA Constitution excludes the  "general welfare" clause because of its potential for abuse, while it  adds a clause that specifically prohibits the central government from  subsidizing private industry – a major feature of the Republicans'  mercantilist policy.

*USA:* "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

*CSA*: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but  neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall  ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate  money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce;  except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and  other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors  and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which  cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as  may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof."

*Comments*: Again, a clause specifically prohibiting the central government from spending money on subsidies for private industry.  



*Article I, Section 9*


Several clauses were added to this section of the CSA Constitution which have no parallel in the US Constitution:

*CSA:* "Congress shall appropriate no money from the  Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas  and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads  of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the  purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment  of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall  have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of  claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of  Congress to establish."

*Comments:* A check on federal spending.



*CSA:* "All bills appropriating money shall specify in  Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes  for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to  any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract  shall have been made or such service rendered...Every law, or resolution  having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that  shall be expressed in the title."

*Comments:* A reaction to the cronyism inherent in the Republicans' mercantilism.  



*USA:* "The executive power shall be vested in a  President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office  during the term of four years..."

*CSA:* "The executive power shall be vested in a  President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice  President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be reeligible..."

*Comments:* Again, a reaction to corruption in the  federal government (single-term limit removes the incentive to buy the  support of cronies for the purpose of winning re-election).



*Article V*


*USA:* "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution,  or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several  states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in  either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this  Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the  several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one  or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;  provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one  thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first  and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that  no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage  in the Senate."

*CSA:* "Upon the demand of any three States, legally  assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a  convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments  to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at  the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed  amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention,  voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two-  thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof,  as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the  general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this  Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of  its equal representation in the Senate."

*Comments:* Congress plays no role in the amendment  process, all the amending power rests with the States: in keeping with  the general reduction of the role of the federal government.

These are excerpts from  Northern newspaper articles, reacting to secession. They demonstrate  what Northerners thought secession was all about. 

From an editorial in the _New York Evening Post_, March 12 1861:




> There are some difficulties attending the collection of the  revenue  in the seceding states which it will be well to look at  attentively.  That either the revenue from duties must be collected in  the ports of  the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to  importations from  abroad, it is generally admitted. If neither of these  things be done,  our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the  sources which supply  our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no  money to carry on the  government; the nation will become bankrupt  before the next crop of corn  is ripe. . . . Allow railroad iron to be  entered at Savannah with the  low duty of ten percent, which is all that  the Southern Confederacy  think of laying on imported goods, and not an  ounce more would be  imported at New York; the railways would be  supplied from the southern  ports. What, then, is left for our  government? Shall we let the seceding  states repeal the revenue laws  for the whole Union in this manner? Or  will the government choose to  consider all foreign commerce destined for  these ports where we have no  custom-houses and no collectors, as  contraband, and stop it, when  offering to enter the collection districts  from which our authorities  have been expelled? Or will the president  call a special session of  Congress to do what the last unwisely failed  to do—to abolish all ports  of entry in the seceding states?


From an editorial in the _New Haven Daily Register_, February 11 1861:




> There never was a more ill-timed, injudicious and destructive   measure proposed, (so far as northern interests are concerned) than the   Morrill tariff bill, now pending before  Congress. It proposes to  greatly increase the duties on all imported  goods, and in many articles  to carry up the increase to the prohibitory  point . . . so that while  Congress is raising the duties for the  Northern ports, the Southern  Convention is doing away with all import  duties for the Southern ports.  . . . More than three fourths of the  seafront of the Atlantic States—  extending from the Chesapeake  inclusive, to the furtherest boundary of  Texas, would be beyond the  reach of our Congress tariff. Their ports  would invite the free trade of the world! And what would the high tariff  be worth to us then, with only a one-fourth fragment of our former  seacoast left?


From an editorial in the _Boston Transcript_, March 18 1861:




> It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that  trade is  perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return  of the  seceding states to the Union which they have abandoned. Alleged   grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for   separation of the cotton states; but the mask has been thrown off and it   is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now   for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can   be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New   Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New   York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their   mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade. If the   Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a   nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the business of the chief   Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby. The difference is so   great between the tariff of the Union and  that of the Confederate  States that the entire Northwest must find it  to their advantage to  purchase their imported goods at New Orleans  rather than New York. In  addition to this, the manufacturing interests  of the country will  suffer from the increased importation resulting from  low duties. . . .  The [government] would be false to its obligations if  this state of  things were not provided against


*All from Henry Perkins' "Northern Editorials on Secession," Vol. II

*The Elephant in the Room - What About Slavery?*

 It's impossible to deny that slavery was a factor in the decision of the South to secede, but in my opinion it was an extremely minor one. Slavery is a prominent theme in the secession documents, it's true, but the fact is that there was no threat to slavery in 1861, and so protecting slavery would not have been a rational motive for secession.  


The Republican Party was not      abolitionist. The abolitionists were a radical minority within the      Republican Party. Lincoln himself repeatedly promised not to seek      the abolition of slavery. He was never an abolitionist at any point.      Lincoln, in an effort to reverse the secession movement, even      promised the South a Constitutional amendment in 1861 that would      have more explicitly and     permanently preserved slavery.But, even if we suppose that the     Republican Party would  have sought abolition if they had the chance,     they didn't have that  chance. Abolition would have required a     constitutional amendment,  which would have required ratification by     3/4th of the  states. In 1861, there were 34 states in the     union, 15 of which were  slave-holding. Thus, there were nowhere near     enough free states to  pass a constitutional amendment abolishing     slavery. To get a  3/4th  majority against slavery,  26     additional free states would have had  to have been admitted to the     union (45/60). Note that this is 10  more states that _currently_     exist! If the Republicans had been trying to outmaneuver the South     in this cumbersome fashion, they'd _still_ be  working on it!     It's true that the Republicans had been trying to  prevent the spread     of slavery into the Western territories, but this  was not about     trying to gain a 3/4th majority of free  states for the     purpose of abolishing slavery. It was about keeping  blacks out of     the West (the Republicans were extreme segregationists  in their own     right).What about the fugitive slave     clause? It's often  mentioned that the Northern states ignored this     constitutional  obligation and thus helped undermine slavery –     angering the South.  That's true, but that doesn't provide a motive     for secession. As  long as they were in the union, the slave-holding     states could  pressure the free states to honor the fugitive slave     clause. Outside  the union? The Northern states are part of a foreign     country, with  no obligations whatsoever to return freed slaves. This     motive makes  no sense. 

 Henry Clay had the same opinion – secession to preserve slavery makes no sense. From "_Henry Clay's Last Speech_," The Alexandria Gazette, 10 April 1861:




> three of the major problems that the South had with the North  -namely, the latter's attempts to outlaw slavery in Washington, D.C., to  outlaw it in the territories, and their abuse of the fugitive slave law  - would all be multiplied by the separation of the two halves of the  nation. Disunion would cause the South to lose any power it previously  held to ensure the survival of slavery in the territories and in  D.C...Also, if the North were a separate country, free from slavery,  many more slaves would run and certainly would not be returned...the  South's influence over both the fugitive slave law and the question of  slavery in the territories would be lost because of disunion


 IN SUMMARY: There's no denying that slavery was a source of tension  between North and South. One of the South's major grievances against the  North was the failure to honor the fugitive slave clause, and their  resistance to the spread of slavery into the West. This conflict made  cooperation on other fronts (like economic policy) more difficult.  Slavery was definitely on the minds of Southerners as they debated  secession in 1861 – as evidenced by the secession documents. HOWEVER,   secession would have not protected slavery (quite the opposite), and the  South knew this perfectly well – and so protecting slavery cannot have  been the actual goal which they sought to achieve through secession. By  way of analogy, you might say that ideological differences contributed  to the tensions between Japan and the US in the 1930s and 1940s, and  thus in some sense could be called a cause of the war, but neither side  actually went to war for those ideological reasons.

----------


## Carlybee

The ‘Confederate Flag’ Never Called Me a ******: But Blacks and Liberals Have

by Mychal Massie on June 24, 2015 in Daily Rant, Race & Politics  




> It’s interesting that liberals and Obama-lefties have little to say when the U.S. flag is trampled and burned by anti-American anarchists and Muslims. They call it “free speech” and “freedom of expression.” But they somehow justify condemnation of the Confederate Flag as a ‘hate symbol’.
> 
> For millions, the Confederate Flag is a symbol of their love for the New South, which has risen out of the ashes of the Old South.
> 
> The homosexual flag flies wherever it is wanted without a thought pursuant to how people who oppose homosexuality may feel or what they may think about it. Muslims are now flying their flags in America but it is the Confederate Flag that is worthy of condemnation. 
> Mychal Massie + Harley Davidson + Confederate Flag Bandana = Crazed Liberals
> From time to time I wear a confederate bandana on my head when I’m riding the Harley Davidson. My friends do the same.
> 
> I add to that I have never feared the Confederate Flag. I have always been ambivalent about it. The Confederate Flag has never called me a ****** but white liberals have. The Confederate Flag has never threatened me with physical harm and called me sellout, Uncle Tom, or any of a host of other vitriolic racial pejoratives, but white liberals, Muslims, and blacks have.
> ...



http://mychal-massie.com/premium/the...liberals-have/

About Mychal Massie
Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives and a former member of its parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. Read the entire Bio here

----------


## chronicaust

I wish the Confederacy had won, we would be inconceivably freer had we lived under it's constitution. I would bet that slavery would have come to a much more peaceful end.

----------


## Crashland

> You want to chill out on the sarcasm and sass a little bit mister sassy-pants? The point is not that slavery wasn't an issue regarding these 4 particular states, the issue was whether or not this counts for the whole confederacy, and whether this is cause to ignore the Northern aggressors of their moral wrongs in creating the current mess that we call race relations, which is at the real crux of this "banning the Virginia Battle Flag in the name of Newspeak/Doublespeak" bull$#@! we're seeing unfold.


The sass is merely responding in kind when I hear quotes like 


> Yep, you just nailed it buddy, you want me  to tell you what prize you've won? The admiration of every brainless  Yankee who thought that Lincoln was some sort of saint for murdering  more Americans than any other person in history. It's really telling  when a Pennsylvanian has to correct someone from South Carolina about  Civil War history.


If you aren't interested in sass anymore though, I'm fine to abandon it too.






> I can list about 4 or 5 people posting on this thread who beg to differ, to speak nothing for that view dominating the so-called news cycle right this very moment.


In which post has anyone claimed that secession was entirely about slavery and not at all about your tariffs and states rights?





> We have 4 states that have listed slavery as a cause for secession, 2 of them while also listing economic grievances apart from slavery (I'm not as familiar with the Texas and Mississippi declarations and want to read them more closely before commenting on them), and we have a 5th one that is only referencing slavery in those states apart from itself, and 6 other states that are unspoken for. How is anything being blown out of proportion here again?


Blowing it out of proportion would be when you claim, with no evidence, that the other 6 states which are unspoken for, did not have a grievance about slavery, so as to outnumber the other states which are spoken for. Yes, the states that enumerated specific reasons don't necessarily speak for the entire confederacy, but it is ridiculous to assume that the unspoken-for states would have significantly different reasons than the states for which we do have specific information.





> It was cited in 4 states' declaration as a reason (among others), there were 11 states involved, not counting Missouri and Maryland which were preemptively struck by Lincoln's military in a manner that would make George W. Bush do a triple take.


I don't endorse Lincoln or anything that he did. You would be hard pressed to find many in this forum who think that states do not have the right to secede.






> The "civil war was about slavery" cliche is the bloody shirt that is waved to excuse EVERYTHING the North did, including to its own people in the name of maintaining the war effort, which is where my family's grievances come into play. In principle, I'm more sympathetic to the abolishionists as I think they had the morally right stance on the issue of slavery itself, particularly the cruelty of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and how it routinely violated the Moral Law as espoused in the Pentateuch regarding kidnapping, an offense punishable by death according to theonomic principles. However, when I compare how most of Europe ended the slave trade versus how America accomplished it, I'd sooner whistle Dixie and shout "To hell with the union" than lend credence to the mob of brainwashed fools trying to erase the truth from America's history.


It was about slavery AND other things. It's not a black and white answer. But just because slavery was a part of it, and just because this fact is often (incorrectly) used to justify other wrongdoings, does not mean that we should deny the fact.





> What the hell does it matter if they simply reference it, particularly if they reference it as existing in other states with a dispassionate tone? You're setting the bar so unrealistically high that I'm debating whether even talking to you on this subject will be productive. But to provide some much needed nuance to this discussion, Virginia references the practice once as being practiced in other states, North Carolina was more interested in the militaristic aggression that Virginia also cites, and I just perused the Florida declaration and every reference to slavery (there are many) is tied in with economics, particularly the election of an uneducated nobody (Lincoln) by a bunch of corporate and political cronies. Come to think of it, every single declaration I've read has even more emphasis on the economic divide between north and south than it does on the slavery question, which was my principle point alongside the fact that Lincoln's government didn't give a rat's ass about the slaves until after it served their economic ends, which is implied in the Florida declaration on such points as *"The members of the Republican party has denied that the party will oppose the admission of any new state where slavery shall be tolerated."* and *"It is denied that it is the purpose of the party soon to enter into the possession of the powers of the Federal Government to abolish slavery by any direct legislative act."*


I'll amend it then, to reference slavery/abolitionism/slave laws multiple times specifically as a reason for secession.

Yes, Lincoln's government didn't give a rats ass about the slaves until later. I agree. That doesn't negate the fact that slavery was an important reason for secession. (Note: "an important" reason, not "the only" reason.)


Re: R3volution 3.0 -- You are selectively picking and choosing the parts from the historical sources that are consistent with your narrative. The grievances you are representing are absolutely true, but it does not paint an accurate full picture.

----------


## Crashland

> I wish the Confederacy had won, we would be inconceivably freer had we lived under it's constitution. I would bet that slavery would have come to a much more peaceful end.


Yes, the Confederacy shouldn't have had to win in the first place, it should have been recognized as independent without a war at all. Although either way, with the eventual removal of slavery the South still would have been pretty screwed with how much the change would impact the economy.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> The sass is merely responding in kind when I hear quotes like 
> If you aren't interested in sass anymore though, I'm fine to abandon it too.


So you _assert_. 

How about this: explain to me how secession would have helped preserve slavery.

----------


## twomp

> I wish the Confederacy had won, we would be inconceivably freer had we lived under it's constitution. I would bet that slavery would have come to a much more peaceful end.


Perhaps they should have made their slaves fight for them, they could have won?

----------


## dannno

> Perhaps they should have made their slaves fight for them, they could have won?


A lot of slaves voluntarily fought for the Confederacy to preserve the freedom of the south from the tyranny of the north, that is the entire point. Those black people would probably agree with Cliven Bundy when he pondered whether blacks are better off today without 'slavery' - the point was that the tyranny of the Federal govt. has driven them into poverty, torn their families apart and they are more enslaved to the system than ever. Most people with a shallow intellect thought he was trying to say that black people are too stupid to pick themselves up out of poverty once they became free, which was NOT his point, that was what the media and many on the left presumed. 

There is overwhelming evidence on this thread debunking all the Unionsuckers, I haven't seen the Unionsuckers post one single solitary shred of evidence in this entire thread supporting their position, the only thing they use is emotion and their personal opinion. I see pages and pages and thousands of documents supporting the neo-Confederates here. Am I missing something?

----------


## Crashland

> So you _assert_. 
> 
> How about this: explain to me how secession would have helped preserve slavery.


I don't know what would have happened if the secession had been successful. Most likely, slavery would have eventually ended, although it would have happened significantly later than it actually did, most likely anywhere between 10-40 years later, and not all at once. The last places to abolish the slave trade are the places with the most to lose economically.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I don't know what would have happened if the secession had been successful. Most likely, slavery would have eventually ended, although it would have happened significantly later than it actually did, most likely anywhere between 10-40 years later, and not all at once. The last places to abolish the slave trade are the places with the most to lose economically.


Yes, the war hastened the end of slavery, but that's neither here nor there.

You believe that the South seceded in order to preserve slavery, right? 

So, explain the logic of that alleged motive.

How could the South have thought that secession would preserve slavery?

"If we secede, then...[something]...and thus slavery will be preserved." Fill in the missing logical step.

----------


## dannno

> I don't know what would have happened if the secession had been successful. Most likely, slavery would have eventually ended, although it would have happened significantly later than it actually did, most likely anywhere between 10-40 years later, and not all at once. The last places to abolish the slave trade are the places with the most to lose economically.


Slavery was a good deal for the slave traders, merchants and bankers - whether it provided a net benefit to local economies is debatable, even in The Economist.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...omic-history-2




> Did slavery make economic sense? 
> 
> ...
>  slavery in the American South was a lucrative enterprise for plantation owners...
> ...
> There was also a big industry in slave finance, procurement and transport. 
> ...
> Christopher Codrington made a lot of money from the sugar trade, and made large bequests to All Souls College, Oxford. 
> ...
> ...

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> CSA: "Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish."
> 
> Comments: A check on federal spending.


Are you kidding?  It's a check on spending by the legislature.  But it also gives the executive unilateral ability to spend.  And creates another branch of government with its own unilateral ability to spend.

----------


## Crashland

> Yes, the war hastened the end of slavery, but that's neither here nor there.
> 
> You believe that the South seceded in order to preserve slavery, right? 
> 
> So, explain the logic of that alleged motive.
> 
> How could the South have thought that secession would preserve slavery?
> 
> "If we secede, then...[something]...and thus slavery will be preserved." Fill in the missing logical step.


Not necessarily. I believe that slavery was an important reason for secession, which is different from what you said. The fallout from the Dred Scott case, the failure of northern states to return slaves under the Fugitve Slave law, and the tolerance of the minority abolitionist movement and things like Brown's rebellion, are all things that the southern states found objectionable and spooked them. All of these issues could have been avoided if the northern states had respected the sovereignty of the southern states, *OR* if the southern states didn't have slavery. The political and economic grievances are interconnected with slavery.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Are you kidding?  It's a check on spending by the legislature.  But it also gives the executive unilateral ability to spend.


No it doesn't. What it's saying is that spending bills originating in Congress require two-thirds vote, while bills proposed to Congress by the President require only the simple majority (not that they require no vote at all).

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Not necessarily. I believe that slavery was an important reason for secession, which is different from what you said. The fallout from the Dred Scott case, the failure of northern states to return slaves under the Fugitve Slave law, and the tolerance of the minority abolitionist movement and things like Brown's rebellion, are all things that the southern states found objectionable and spooked them.


Yes, they found those things objectionable.

And how would secession have remedied the situation from their perspective?

With regard to the fugitive slave law, secession would clearly have made the situation _worse_ for the slave-owners (if the Northerners weren't returning slaves when they had a legal obligation to do so, they sure as hell wouldn't be returning slaves after secession voided that obligation).

----------


## BUTSRSLY

> the only thing they use is emotion and their personal opinion


NO WORRY, SO LONG AS THIS DOESN'T SPREAD ACROSS THE INTERNET

----------


## Crashland

> Yes, they found those things objectionable.
> 
> And how would secession have remedied the situation from their perspective?
> 
> With regard to the fugitive slave law, secession would clearly have made the situation _worse_ for the slave-owners (if the Northerners weren't returning slaves when they had a legal obligation to do so, they sure as hell wouldn't be returning slaves after secession voided that obligation).


That is different from what I said, which is that slavery was an important reason for the secession. I'm not claiming that it would have remedied anything, other than achieving independence, and perhaps make it easier in general to escape northern influence, which would have helped allow the south to deal with slavery on its own terms.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> The sass is merely responding in kind when I hear quotes like 
> If you aren't interested in sass anymore though, I'm fine to abandon it too.


Fair enough, I wasn't talking to you and you see the party I was addressing as a comrade-in-arms, so I will treat you both like the same person and cease in sassing you or yourself. 




> In which post has anyone claimed that secession was entirely about slavery and not at all about your tariffs and states rights?


Comment #6, author Lightweis
Comment #22, author Vanguard101
Comment #28, author You (you seem to be backpedaling a bit now so I won't count it as one of my 4-5)
Comment #95, author whoisjohngalt
Comment #160, author Krugminator2 (actually states that the Confederacy itself was based on owning a person, which is a lie that even you'd be embarrassed condoning)
Comment #208, author Tywysog Cymru  (this one is by implication, as it qualifies the Virginia Battle Flag as a symbol of racism and slavery to everybody except white southerners, which is demonstrably false since I am a white NORTHERNER and I don't view that flag as being such)

There you go, 5 examples, spanning less than half of this total discussion. 




> Blowing it out of proportion would be when you claim, with no evidence, that the other 6 states which are unspoken for, did not have a grievance about slavery, so as to outnumber the other states which are spoken for.


Are you admitting that Virginia didn't count slavery as a grievance and only referenced it as being a grievance of other states? If so, we're on agreement on that point, but that's basically it. The rest of this is you begging the question.




> Yes, the states that enumerated specific reasons don't necessarily speak for the entire confederacy, but it is ridiculous to assume that the unspoken-for states would have significantly different reasons than the states for which we do have specific information.


My overall point wasn't that the reasons were significantly different, every one of them shared some degree of commonality on the economic front since they were mostly reliant upon agriculture for their respective economies. Even in the cases of South Carolina and Georgia, which are admitted to by most parties here as being the most rabidly pro-slave, it is not the only listed grievance, and since they were the central hub of the initial secessionist movement, it is logical to conclude that the other states were even less obsessed on the slavery point and more concerned about Northern political intrigues and aggression, which I've noted in the Florida declaration and was noted by another in the case of the North Carolina declaration. 




> I don't endorse Lincoln or anything that he did. You would be hard pressed to find many in this forum who think that states do not have the right to secede.


That's fine, that's only part of the issue. Lincoln was a puppet for corporate villains, many of them situated in my home state, and their economic advantage was the primary catalyst for the Civil War. Slavery was, at best, a secondary tangent for both sides, though a more significant one in certain quarters. Granted, slavery was heavily tied in with the South's economy, but to focus on that point alone, which has been done by several individuals in this discussion (arguably including you in previous posts), is the same as endorsing Lincoln's original enablers, as well as the current crypto-Marxist crowd that are using Lincoln's fable history as a tool for controlling much of this country's politics at present.




> It was about slavery AND other things. It's not a black and white answer. But just because slavery was a part of it, and just because this fact is often (incorrectly) used to justify other wrongdoings, does not mean that we should deny the fact.


Who was denying the fact? My objection is the emphasis on the fact, not the fact itself. The only thing under discussion was the importance of slavery itself in the instigation of hostilities, not its moral dimensions with the abolishionist context (which I am firmly in agreement with). If you reworded the first sentence of this post to state "It was about other things and then later slavery" we might come to an agreement. 




> I'll amend it then, to reference slavery/abolitionism/slave laws multiple times specifically as a reason for secession.


Florida and Virginia's declarations alone count for 2 out of the 3, I'll have to get back to you on the 3rd one as I haven't read North Carolina's or any of the other non-represented ones in their entirety.




> Yes, Lincoln's government didn't give a rats ass about the slaves until later. I agree. That doesn't negate the fact that slavery was an important reason for secession. (Note: "an important" reason, not "the only" reason.)


Importance is a relative concept. Several persons in the south may have been worried about having their property taken unlawfully and informed the views of their representation given the fanaticism of some in the abolitionist movement (whether it was legitimate property or not is negligible given that both the Union states and Confederate states were guilty of violating the moral precepts of the Christian faith on this matter, though the North reaped most of the initial economic benefits and were saddled with none of the guilt). The end result of trying to place all this emphasis on the slavery point may be a simple matter of moral principle for both myself and you, but to most of the people with power in this country, it's a means of suppression, and I see no reason to lend credence to it.




> Re: R3volution 3.0 -- You are selectively picking and choosing the parts from the historical sources that are consistent with your narrative. The grievances you are representing are absolutely true, but it does not paint an accurate full picture.


I don't think he is, I think he's taking a very legitimate view on said historical sources and providing a needed countermeasure to the obviously lopsided viewpoint being perpetuated by the so-called mainstream. You might want to amend your closing statement to "it does not paint an accurate full picture according to me" to, in turn, give your assertion an accurate and full picture.

----------


## kahless

This major market newspaper certainly sounds like they are linking states rights to racism but I guess this is just hyperbole on my part.  

What the debate over the Confederate flag and states' rights really means
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...ry.html#page=1



> Whatever the causes of the Civil War, the issues of states' rights and race are deeply related.


No stretch here, Thomas Jefferson is next. 

Thomas Jefferson Memorial, Confederate statues enter national race debate 
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...624-story.html

----------


## hells_unicorn

> This major market newspaper certainly sounds like they are linking states rights to racism but I guess this is just hyperbole on my part.  
> 
> What the debate over the Confederate flag and states' rights really means
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...ry.html#page=1
> 
> 
> No stretch here, Thomas Jefferson is next. 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson Memorial, Confederate statues enter national race debate 
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...624-story.html


Chicago is the city that gave birth to Lincoln's entire political career. It's unsurprising to hear vindictive lies like this coming from said city's newspapers, and it also speaks to progressive so-called compassion towards black people given how Chicago boasts some of the highest statistics of black on black violent crime in the country and they are worried about Johnny Rebel questioning Uncle Sam's legacy for violence against his own subjects.

----------


## KingNothing

> Houston ISD considering changing schools named after Confederates war heroes.  Last year they spent $250,000 to change the mascot of the Lamar Redskins.   People wonder why school taxes are high.


Good point, school taxes are high because so many schools are changing their mascots and names.

....

----------


## phill4paul

Now the park service....




> The National Park Service moved Wednesday to stop sales of the Confederate flag in federal parks, the Loop has learned.
> 
> “The National Park Service is asking its cooperating associations, concessions, and partners to voluntarily withdraw sales in their stores of Confederate flags and other items, such as stickers, that depict the Confederate flag as a stand-alone feature,” Park Service spokeswoman Kathy Kupper e-mailed us after we’d inquired early in the day.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...ederate-flags/

----------


## Carlybee

> Good point, school taxes are high because so many schools are changing their mascots and names.
> 
> ....


Well...it certainly won't help...assuming you are being sarcastic.  Who do you think gets to pay when that $250k becomes multiplied by hundreds of schools? How about when they want to change street signs? We have Jefferson Davis Hospital here as well that is a county run hospital. Now multiply all that across entire areas of the state. How about when it becomes federal buildings? Mount Rushmore? Yes that may sound hyperbolic, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. I mean people are blaming mass murder on a flag.  We live in a country run by and populated by knee jerk idiots.

----------


## phill4paul

Well worth the read...



 DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT: BLACK SLAVEOWNERS




> The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large.





> According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
> 
> To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.





> In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).





> In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner......





> A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been undergoing structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than generations of Americans have been led to believe. In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.


http://americancivilwar.com/authors/...laveowners.htm

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Some  see US flag in similar light too.

That said, there has to be a flag to rally people around especially when time comes to go to war to defend or spread our freedoms.





*Bill* ‏@DefendWallSt                                               
#*BlackLivesMatter* protesters and their children setting American flags on fire in #*McKinney* Texas 
 
Retweets *114* 
             5:13 PM - 8 Jun 2015





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW0h58Dh09s













> *Patriotism*
> 
> I  hate the sight of the American flag. Modern American  patriotism  is    an  absolute joke. People pretending like they have  something to  be    proud  while White people are being murdered daily in the  streets.   Many    veterans believe we owe them something for “protecting  our way   of   life”  or “protecting our freedom”. But im not sure what way  of   life   they are  talking about. How about we protect the White race and    stop   fighting  for the jews. I will say this though, I myself would   have    rather lived  in 1940’s American than Nazi Germany, and no this   is not    ignorance  speaking, it is just my opinion. So I dont blame   the  veterans   of any  wars up until after Vietnam, because at least   they  had an   American to  be proud of and fight for.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...y-awakened-me&

----------


## phill4paul

Some people are gonna have conniption fits....



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon...son_(colonist)

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Some people are gonna have conniption fits....
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon...son_(colonist)


I bet they won't ...

----------


## AuH20

> Some people are gonna have conniption fits....
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon...son_(colonist)


Before Nat Turner's rebellion, there were more anti-slavery societies in the South as opposed to the North.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Some people are gonna have conniption fits....
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon...son_(colonist)


Facts are very stubborn things, and for those that hate them, painful things as well. Every single demagogue in the SPLC should be forced to have this meme framed and hung on their office walls for the rest of their lives.

----------


## twomp

> Some people are gonna have conniption fits....
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon...son_(colonist)


WOW!!! That is SUPER interesting that he became AMERICA's first slave owner in 1655. Especially when you consider that "AMERICA" didn't become a country until July 4, 1776!

----------


## givemeliberty2010

> The flag is only a symbol of slavery to the ignorant, who are unaware of the true causes and meaning of the war. 
> 
> That said, I would be extremely annoyed with Rand if he publicly agreed with me.
> 
> ...no faster way to sink a campaign (since most voters _are_ ignorant about the war and _do_ wrongly see it as a symbol of slavery).
> 
> So, I'm fine with this.


Having studied the background of the Secession War, I can't understand the argument that the war was not primarily about slavery and Southern expansionism. (Southerners started the war with Mexico, were ready to go to war with Cuba and wanted to replicate Southern laws in all the territories.)

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Originally Posted by *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...
> 			
> 		
> 
> ...


And I checked those "other" sources you cited and NONE of them point to any actual numbers or study to support the BS claim.  One of those you cited further went on to say that the "highest" number of slaves rose to 20% of the population.  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???

It's BS, BS, BS, BS, BS!!!

----------


## givemeliberty2010

> Yes, the war hastened the end of slavery, but that's neither here nor there.
> 
> You believe that the South seceded in order to preserve slavery, right? 
> 
> So, explain the logic of that alleged motive.
> 
> How could the South have thought that secession would preserve slavery?
> 
> "If we secede, then...[something]...and thus slavery will be preserved." Fill in the missing logical step.


If they secede, they get most of the territories and Latin America.

----------


## KingNothing

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.

----------


## KingNothing

> Facts are very stubborn things, and for those that hate them, painful things as well. Every single demagogue in the SPLC should be forced to have this meme framed and hung on their office walls for the rest of their lives.


As true as this fact is, what does it matter?  A black guy owned slaves?  Ok?  And?

----------


## KingNothing

> Well...it certainly won't help...assuming you are being sarcastic.  Who do you think gets to pay when that $250k becomes multiplied by hundreds of schools? How about when they want to change street signs? We have Jefferson Davis Hospital here as well that is a county run hospital. Now multiply all that across entire areas of the state. How about when it becomes federal buildings? Mount Rushmore? Yes that may sound hyperbolic, but it's not out of the realm of possibility. I mean people are blaming mass murder on a flag.  *We live in a country run by and populated by knee jerk idiots.*


We'd be wise not to join their ranks.

----------


## Smitty

The Confederate flag is a non issue to me.

The issue to me is, will Rand continue to allow himself to be led around by the nose by the social justice warriors if he does indeed get elected?

That's the question that all liberty movement members should be asking.

----------


## phill4paul

> WOW!!! That is SUPER interesting that he became AMERICA's first slave owner in 1655. Especially when you consider that "AMERICA" didn't become a country until July 4, 1776!


   Do you think the term "America" was invented on July 4, 1776?

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> WOW!!! That is SUPER interesting that he became AMERICA's first slave owner in 1655. Especially when you consider that "AMERICA" didn't become a country until July 4, 1776!


Actually "America" (more specifically "the Americas") is a continent and not a country.  The "United States of America" fiction was initiated on 7-4-1776.

----------


## euphemia

Here's the thing:  Why do people think racism is confined to the South?

----------


## Carlybee

> Here's the thing:  Why do people think racism is confined to the South?




It's not but unfortunately due to groups like the KKK and other white supremacy groups residing mostly in the South, it gets the brunt of it. There are still pockets of racism in the South. I've seen it firsthand in the way some white people talk. Granted they are usually pretty redneck. I grew up in Texas but have lived in Georgia, Northern Florida and Louisiana. My ex in-laws were both college educated people from Georgia and they were both bigots. They freely used the n word in their home and talked down to their black housekeeper. They were an older generation though and I'm not sure it's so prevalent in younger generations like it used to be but judging by idiots like Dylann Roof, that would be hard to say.  So while I support NOT removing the history and flag of the Confederacy, I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say racism is gone from the South.  However there is a ton of black against white bigotry as well that seems to get a free pass as if it's poetic justice or something. It's bad no matter who does it.  My parents taught us to take people at face value regardless of race.

----------


## AuH20

> Here's the thing:  Why do people think racism is confined to the South?


I don't think they have been to Boston or Philadelphia.

----------


## alucard13mm

> The Confederate flag is a non issue to me.
> 
> The issue to me is, will Rand continue to allow himself to be led around by the nose by the social justice warriors if he does indeed get elected?
> 
> That's the question that all liberty movement members should be asking.


This.

In my opinion, rand should have said...

he may or may not agree on the confederate battle flag and its meaning, but supports a states right to decide if they want to fly it or not. He would definitely defend peoples rights to fly it on their cars or homes.

It should be a formula. I believe in X, but support states and individuals that believe in Z. I am anti abortion, but support horrible states that make abortion legal. Im anti pot, but support those pot head states that legalize pot. I believe in flying purple narwhals, but support a state not believing in it.

----------


## AuH20

Well, this is getting ridiculous........................ 




> *"There's even talk of them restricting the Confederate battle flag on private homes. It would be illegal to have that on the front of your house."*

----------


## AuH20

Why don't the statists in this country just unite with ISIS and get it over with?

----------


## RonPaulMall

Rand seems to have an unfortunate knack of jumping in front of these SJW trainwrecks right before they derail. He visited Ferguson right before that whole thing went sideways and now he waited to denounce the flag until the the day before the issue goes full retard.

----------


## kahless

> Here's the thing:  Why do people think racism is confined to the South?


What is worse is why does the media portray it as only white on black.  I have never discriminated against anyone in my life and I am not about to start.  But living here in NY I have received my fair share of it from blacks in my life time.  If I acted the way some blacks have treated me it would have been called a hate crime, possibly made the news, I would be ostracized and lose my job.

So I would even go so far as to say there is more black on white racism than the other way around. I wish companies that owned news media properties would pay their white anchors at the same rate as the average worker where they would have to deal with the locals in their own communities every day.  Then after they experienced some black on white racism lets see how they deal with the race issue.  Instead of the wealthy elites being so far removed from it being shuffled in and out in their limos every day.

----------


## Todd

> Heck of a distraction operation ongoing.  Well played, TPTB.

----------


## kahless

> Rand seems to have an unfortunate knack of jumping in front of these SJW trainwrecks right before they derail. He visited Ferguson right before that whole thing went sideways and now he waited to denounce the flag until the the day before the issue goes full retard.


I am thinking he knows the only way to get elected is trying to beat them at their own game.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> And I checked those "other" sources you cited and NONE of them point to any actual numbers or study to support the BS claim.  One of those you cited further went on to say that the "highest" number of slaves rose to 20% of the population.  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???
> 
> It's BS, BS, BS, BS, BS!!!


I have no idea whether those numbers (20 & 43) are correct, but it would not be at all difficult to reconcile them.

For example, assume a population of 1000 people with 200 households (indicating an average of 5 people per household).

If the number of slaves is 20% of the population, then there would be 200 slaves (1000 people x 0.20 = 200 slaves).
If 43% of households own slaves, then there would be 86 slave-owning households (200 households x 0.43 = 86 slave-owning households).

This would mean that there would be an average of about 2.3 slaves per slave-owning household (200 slaves / 86 slave-owning households = 2.3).

----------


## hells_unicorn

> As true as this fact is, what does it matter?  A black guy owned slaves?  Ok?  And?


Nice to meet you Hillary Clinton, allow me to introduce you to the real world where correlation to past events can teach us about the present. If a black man was the first person to pioneer the concept of owning someone indefinitely in the Western hemisphere in legal terms, it may clue us in on why black on black slavery is still a massively popular thing in Africa and why the United States' black communities have such massive problems with self-inflicted violent crime. Admittedly this alone doesn't fully explain why this problem exists and continues to persist, but it definitely casts doubt on the notion that whitey is responsible for black America's woes.

You wanna cough up that hard drive and maybe come clean on Benghazi now former madame secretary?




> I don't think they have been to Boston or Philadelphia.


Having spent about half of my life either in or around Philadelphia, I can testify that race relations in said city are no picnic. Whenever I've go there I always make sure I visited the ATM before entering the city.

----------


## twomp

> Do you think the term "America" was invented on July 4, 1776?


Oh I see, so when you posted that picture, you didn't mean United States of America, you meant the entire continent? Why stop there though? Might as well post a picture of the first slave owner in the entire world while you are at it. Because those are all relevant to the South Carolina flag too!

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Oh I see, so when you posted that picture, you didn't mean United States of America, you meant the entire continent? Why stop there though? Might as well post a picture of the first slave owner in the entire world while you are at it. Because those are all relevant to the South Carolina flag too!


The incident of the first permanent slave owner being black occurred in Virginia, and Virginia was the state where the flag in question originated. If it isn't a relevant point, I have no idea what would be.

----------


## phill4paul

> Oh I see, so when you posted that picture, you didn't mean United States of America, you meant the entire continent? Why stop there though? Might as well post a picture of the first slave owner in the entire world while you are at it. Because those are all relevant to the South Carolina flag too!


  No, because I actually read the link I posted. Did you bother to before starting on this diatribe? And if you cannot see how this is relevant to the current issue then I cannot help you. Those who wish to remain ignorant will remain ignorant.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> That is different from what I said, which is that slavery was an important reason for the secession. I'm not claiming that it would have remedied anything, other than achieving independence, and perhaps make it easier in general to escape northern influence, which would have helped allow the south to deal with slavery on its own terms.


Do you or do you not believe that the South seceded (at least in part) for the purpose of preserving slavery?

...That the preservation of slavery was the end, for which seccession was the means?

...That the conscious motive of the South, in seceding, was to preserve slavery?

If not, then I don't know what you're arguing.

If so, then - again - I'd like to know what you think the South's rationale was (i.e. how would secession have helped preserve slavery).

Or is your position that, indeed, secession _wouldn't_ have helped preserve slavery, but the Southerners were stupid/crazy and somehow inexplicably thought it would?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
> 
> Yes, the war hastened the end of slavery, but that's neither here nor there.
> 
> You believe that the South seceded in order to preserve slavery, right? 
> 
> So, explain the logic of that alleged motive.
> 
> How could the South have thought that secession would preserve slavery?
> ...


Any evidence that the South wanted war with the union (as opposed to peaceful secession)?

Because I could show you considerable evidence to the contrary...

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Slavery was never seriously threatened.


Clearly, the elected officials of Mississippi thought that it was.




> And why are the reasons that North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas seceded never mentioned, 3 of which provided almost all of the Confederate fighting force?


I believe that Virginia was included in my link.  I can't find North Carolina, Tennessee, or Arkansas.




> Are you kidding me? The Morrill Tariffs were spoken about heavily in conjunction with secession in both Georgia and South Carolina, and a clear reading of Georgia's declaration on the link you've provided shows that manufacturing industrialists and Republican politicians were in full collusion on undermining what Georgia saw as its economic security through legislation. The Morrill Tariff itself was not mentioned by name, but the general demeanor of the declaration cites economic concerns well beyond slavery, though it also includes content dealing with slavery. Again, why are only 4 states considered as valid opinions when there are 7 other states involved? Probably because it suits a particularly historical bias me thinks.


What Georgia saw was it's economic security was slavery.  That's what most of document is about.




> I'm not disagreeing with you that South Carolina bears some level of responsibility for the Civil War as they were so agitated that they took Lincoln's bait and shelled Fort Sumter rather than waiting for a sizable plurality of northern journalists who were anti-war (rightly so) to undermine Lincoln's tyrannical designs and power consolidation. By the way, arguing that Virginia should have omitted the word slavery from their declaration with regard to the other states is ludicrous, as it would be a historical falsehood and would like draw even more ire from self-righteous historical revisionists like yourself. The fact that Virginia didn't list slavery itself as its reason for getting involved disqualifies them as being part of the Big 4 that you are so obsessed over.


I would be inclined to believe you if Virginia had said something like "Tyrannical designs of President Lincoln to subjugate free Americans."  But no, Virginia didn't like that Lincoln was going after fellow slave states.  I highly doubt that Virginia would have lifted cared if some Southern fire-eater was elected President and fought a war to keep seceding Northern states in the union.  

"self-righteous historical revisionists".  I love history and want to become a history teacher in the near future.  So I approached this issue as I would any other, I did my research, read primary documents, and came to a conclusion based on the evidence.  And the evidence points to the argument that the driving force behind secession was the preservation of slavery.




> Nice to meet you, I'm a 6th generation Pennsylvanian who has no roots south of here and my ancestors were northern anti-war Copperhead Democrats, mostly Irish, who died in great numbers because they couldn't buy their way out of Lincoln's draft, my great (x3) grandfather supported McClellan in 1864 and witnessed what the Union army did to people who either tried to avoid the draft or desert the army they were forced into. While many of the people who died that came fresh off the boat from the old country could barely tell a Democrat from a Whig/Republican, my family knew full well what the newly born GOP was about, and also how the corrupt banking interests and rail companies that bought much of the coal they mined helped put Lincoln in power.


I'm sorry for what your family went through.  I don't see what this has to do with why the southern states seceded.

Also, how do you know what your ancestors thought about banking interests and railroad companies?  My pro-union ancestors, to my knowledge, didn't write about their experiences.  




> PC is not unique to sodomites and hippies, it's actually pervasive in most of modern conservatism, which has been heavily infiltrated by Trotskyites and remnants of the fanatical transcendental movement that came out of New England Unitarianism. You may not think you're views on Civil War history are tied in with cultural Marxism, but the people who printed the textbooks you built them off of are a different matter altogether. And for the record, absent of your views having anything to do with PC, they are still wrong.


I didn't build my ideas of the civil war off of any textbook.  For the record, I was home-schooled during elementary schooled and was exposed to a lot of neo-Confederate propaganda in middle school by at least one teacher and several students.




> Never been to a segregated state for more than a week's time, though my parents knew a few who moved up to Philadelphia in the 1970s. They were generally upright and decent folks who had jobs. However, most of the people who were bused into my schools growing up were products of the post-Civil Rights period, and were largely self-entitled at best, and gang-banger types looking to stick it to whitey the rest of the time, which was a major catalyst in forming my views on the "so called" Civil Rights movement insofar as what it accomplished, though I'm not fully sold on Martin Luther King Jr. being some commie plant the way segregationists suggest, I'd wager he was probably just a heretical Baptist minister with an idealistic streak that got in bed with the wrong people.


I've known black people who went to segregated schools, including one pastor who hates Obama.  He wouldn't share your views on civil rights though. 




> I wish the Confederacy had won, we would be inconceivably freer had we lived under *it's constitution*. I would bet that slavery would have come to a much more peaceful end.


You mean the one that interfered on states' rights to not have slavery.




> There is overwhelming evidence on this thread debunking all the Unionsuckers, I haven't seen the Unionsuckers post one single solitary shred of evidence in this entire thread supporting their position, *the only thing they use is emotion and their personal opinion.* I see pages and pages and thousands of documents supporting the neo-Confederates here. Am I missing something?


And the declarations of secession from several of the seceding states.

----------


## phill4paul

> I believe that Virginia was included in my link.  *I can't find North Carolina*, Tennessee, or Arkansas.


  Please read the link in post #494 and get back to me.




> For the record, I was home-schooled during elementary schooled and was exposed to a lot of *neo-Confederate propaganda* in middle school


  Meh, skip it. Your mind is closed to the subject. You'll make a great teacher.

----------


## kahless

> ...So I approached this issue as I would any other, I did my research, read primary documents, and came to a conclusion based on the evidence.  And the evidence points to the argument that the driving force behind secession was the preservation of slavery.


It really does not matter and we should not be judging the entire population of the south over the rich slave owners that were 5% of the population.  The other 95% was the average Joe that had no choice other than to lay down and die or fight to protect their families.  

You have kids with no choice but to fight to protect themselves and family under the battle flag I do not think slavery would be all that high on the list of their priorities.  Why do people have a such a hard time understanding the symbol of that sacrifice of those fighting for their home, families and for today regional cultural pride.

----------


## phill4paul

> It really does not matter and we should not be judging the entire population of the south over the rich slave owners that were 5% of the population.  The other 95% was the average Joe that had no choice other than to lay down and die or fight to protect their families.  
> 
> You have kids with no choice but to fight to protect themselves and family under the battle flag I do not think slavery would be all that high on the list of their priorities.  *Why do people have a such a hard time understanding the symbol of that sacrifice of those fighting for their home, families and for today regional cultural pride.*


  I'll take a shot. Because most have no understanding. Because most have not taken the time to research. Because most have been taught by individuals such as Tywysog Cymru. Because a citizenry divided to the point of hatred allows for subservience to a greater power. That power being the Federal government.

----------


## Carlybee

Personally after the last couple of days I think it's time to secede again

----------


## hells_unicorn

> What Georgia saw was it's economic security was slavery. That's what most of document is about.


Again, this is one state out of 11, and the issue of slavery was intertwined with their agrarian system, that is not being denied, it is simply being identified for what it was, part of the list of grievances of the entire Confederacy. Leave us not forget, slavery was codified as federal law by the U.S. government, so by this standard the entire American U.S. Constitution should have been reset, something I wouldn't mind doing today, albeit for a number of different reasons.




> I would be inclined to believe you if Virginia had said something like "Tyrannical designs of President Lincoln to subjugate free Americans."  But no, Virginia didn't like that Lincoln was going after fellow slave states.  I highly doubt that Virginia would have lifted cared if some Southern fire-eater was elected President and fought a war to keep seceding Northern states in the union.


In other words, you don't care what Virginia had to say on the subject because you have an anachronistic desire to see the Virginia government jump through a bunch of linguistic hoops to suit your fancies. I know black separatists from New York City who think more logically on this subject than you do. 




> "self-righteous historical revisionists".  I love history and want to become a history teacher in the near future.  So I approached this issue as I would any other, I did my research, read primary documents, and came to a conclusion based on the evidence.  And the evidence points to the argument that the driving force behind secession was the preservation of slavery.


This explains everything, you've taken the entire Federal Government's curriculum as gospel and want to serve it as a priest. Have fun brain-washing the next generation, you're yet another reason why my children aren't setting foot anywhere near a public school.




> I'm sorry for what your family went through.  I don't see what this has to do with why the southern states seceded.


You told me your family history in order to explain your position, I returned the favor as a courtesy. And kindly don't condescend to me by telling me you're sorry what my family went through, if you truly were, you'd re-evaluate the path your on and the government you are looking to serve. People who think the way that you do were the reason why many of my ancestors died horrible deaths just after escaping being starved to death by the British Crown and Parliament. Freedom is something that somebody else dies for, it was true in Lincoln's war just as much as it was in Bush's.




> Also, how do you know what your ancestors thought about banking interests and railroad companies?  My pro-union ancestors, to my knowledge, didn't write about their experiences.


My father's side of the family spent several generations as coal miners and were big in the unions that sprung up in the latter half of the 19th century, and it's pretty easy to peace together what was going on from connecting stories my grandfather told me (which were told successively for several generations) with recorded history. Read up on the Molly Maguires and the Pennsylvania Coal Fields, particularly regarding Philadelphia and Reading Railroad and Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company president Franklin B. Gowan (the original robberbaron of Schuylkill County and also a politician, at least until he was ousted by J.P. Morgan). My family was not directly implicated with the Maguires, but they were definitely working the same mines and subjecting to the same terrible conditions that lead one of an early grave at slave wages.

The Pennsylvania Railroad companies, many of which were indistinguishable from the Coal Companies at the time, were heavily involved in Abraham Lincoln's nomination and subsequent election in 1860. This is not something under dispute, nor is the reasons behind why so many people in the Pennsylvania Coal Fields were subjected to brutal conditions in order to fatten petty tyrants like the ones who made Lincoln president, so-called "industrialists" who bragged about how they were going to game the entire political system, pillage the southern states and later use the Union Army as a termination squad for resistant Sioux, Cherokee and Apache peoples who didn't want railroads crossing through their territory. I should probably also mention that one of ancestors on my mother's side took a Lakota-Sioux wife soon after the Civil War, so technically both sides of my family have their reasons for saying "to hell with the union". 




> I didn't build my ideas of the civil war off of any textbook.  For the record, I was home-schooled during elementary schooled and was exposed to a lot of neo-Confederate propaganda in middle school by at least one teacher and several students.


That's fine, I spent 12 years Pennsylvania and Maryland public schools, and everything you've said is all but a verbatim rehash of what they tried to force into my head. Granted, I did believe a lot of this stuff until after I graduated college and began digging into my family's history and also reading selected works by Thomas DiLorenzo and a few others. 




> I've known black people who went to segregated schools, including one pastor who hates Obama.  He wouldn't share your views on civil rights though.


If this is some attempt at playing at my emotions, you're wasting your time. I've known too many products of integrated schools in Philadelphia and Baltimore to be moved by an exception to the rule. Besides, statistical data trumps our respective anecdotal experiences, and the fruits of the Civil Rights movement are best explained through Obama's ridiculously high approval ratings among black voters, and also how said people treat each other on a daily basis from Los Angeles to Philadelphia. The biggest city in my state can't seem to go a single day without some poor kid or other bystander getting shot by a Crip or Blood who wants respect.

Maybe your pastor buddy has something to say about all the out-of-wedlock babies that started popping up after busing went into effect? Just a thought.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> Please read the link in post #494 and get back to me.


That's all great, but I'm looking for a primary source like what I linked to.  Even if North Carolina had a different reason for secession than the other Confederate States, that doesn't disprove my statement that slavery was the main reason for the founding of the Confederacy.




> Meh, skip it. Your mind is closed to the subject. You'll make a great teacher.


I've changed my mind on Lincoln (while I was in public high school).  But my opinion on the Confederacy remains the same because I don't find the pro-Confederate arguments convincing in the slightest.




> It really does not matter and we should not be judging the entire population of the south over the rich slave owners that were 5% of the population.  The other 95% was the average Joe that had no choice other than to lay down and die or fight to protect their families.  
> 
> You have kids with no choice but to fight to protect themselves and family under the battle flag I do not think slavery would be all that high on the list of their priorities.  Why do people have a such a hard time understanding the symbol of that sacrifice of those fighting for their home, families and for today regional cultural pride.


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.




> I'll take a shot. Because most have no understanding.


I read the secession declarations, and understand them.  And from reading them it seems clear that slavery was the driving force behind secession.




> Because most have not taken the time to research.


I did my research.




> Because most have been taught by individuals such as Tywysog Cymru.


How many people were taught that the Great Depression would have ended earlier if the market had been allowed to correct itself.  How many were taught that Coolidge and Van Buren were among the greatest Presidents our nation has ever had.




> Because a citizenry divided to the point of hatred allows for subservience to a greater power. That power being the Federal government.


I don't want to divide people, the Confederate flag divides people.  If we are ever going to take our country back, we're going to need white southerners, but we're also going to need blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Northerners, immigrants, etc.  The rebel flag means heritage to some white southerners but to blacks it means slavery and racism.  It should never be associated with the struggle for liberty.




> Again, this is one state out of 11, and the issue of slavery was intertwined with their agrarian system, that is not being denied, it is simply being identified for what it was, part of the list of grievances of the entire Confederacy. Leave us not forget, slavery was codified as federal law by the U.S. government, so by this standard the entire American U.S. Constitution should have been reset, something I wouldn't mind doing today, albeit for a number of different reasons.


  Four of the five states that I can find primary sources for clearly seceded over slavery.




> In other words, you don't care what Virginia had to say on the subject because you have an anachronistic desire to see the Virginia government jump through a bunch of linguistic hoops to suit your fancies. I know black separatists from New York City who think more logically on this subject than you do.


Virginia certainly had no problem being associated with a group of states that stated their desires to secede to preserve slavery.




> This explains everything, you've taken the entire Federal Government's curriculum as gospel and want to serve it as a priest. Have fun brain-washing the next generation, you're yet another reason why my children aren't setting foot anywhere near a public school.


How dare I go into the public schools and fight the system from within?  I should just let America's children never hear about liberty and just teach it to my own children and write blog posts on the internet.




> You told me your family history in order to explain your position, I returned the favor as a courtesy. And kindly don't condescend to me by telling me you're sorry what my family went through, if you truly were, you'd re-evaluate the path your on and the government you are looking to serve. People who think the way that you do were the reason why many of my ancestors died horrible deaths just after escaping being starved to death by the British Crown and Parliament. Freedom is something that somebody else dies for, it was true in Lincoln's war just as much as it was in Bush's.


And like in the case of Bush's war, I don't have to like Saddam Hussein to oppose the war.




> My father's side of the family spent several generations as coal miners and were big in the unions that sprung up in the latter half of the 19th century, and it's pretty easy to peace together what was going on from connecting stories my grandfather told me (which were told successively for several generations) with recorded history. Read up on the Molly Maguires and the Pennsylvania Coal Fields, particularly regarding Philadelphia and Reading Railroad and Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company president Franklin B. Gowan (the original robberbaron of Schuylkill County and also a politician, at least until he was ousted by J.P. Morgan). My family was not directly implicated with the Maguires, but they were definitely working the same mines and subjecting to the same terrible conditions that lead one of an early grave at slave wages.
> 
> The Pennsylvania Railroad companies, many of which were indistinguishable from the Coal Companies at the time, were heavily involved in Abraham Lincoln's nomination and subsequent election in 1860. This is not something under dispute, nor is the reasons behind why so many people in the Pennsylvania Coal Fields were subjected to brutal conditions in order to fatten petty tyrants like the ones who made Lincoln president, so-called "industrialists" who bragged about how they were going to game the entire political system, pillage the southern states and later use the Union Army as a termination squad for resistant Sioux, Cherokee and Apache peoples who didn't want railroads crossing through their territory. I should probably also mention that one of ancestors on my mother's side took a Lakota-Sioux wife soon after the Civil War, so technically both sides of my family have their reasons for saying "to hell with the union".


I'm not defending the Union.




> That's fine, I spent 12 years Pennsylvania and Maryland public schools, and everything you've said is all but a verbatim rehash of what they tried to force into my head. Granted, I did believe a lot of this stuff until after I graduated college and began digging into my family's history and also reading selected works by Thomas DiLorenzo and a few others.


 I've read some of Dilorenzo's articles on LRC, I wasn't convinced.




> If this is some attempt at playing at my emotions, you're wasting your time. I've known too many products of integrated schools in Philadelphia and Baltimore to be moved by an exception to the rule. Besides, statistical data trumps our respective anecdotal experiences, and the fruits of the Civil Rights movement are best explained through Obama's ridiculously high approval ratings among black voters, and also how said people treat each other on a daily basis from Los Angeles to Philadelphia. The biggest city in my state can't seem to go a single day without some poor kid or other bystander getting shot by a Crip or Blood who wants respect.
> 
> Maybe your pastor buddy has something to say about all the out-of-wedlock babies that started popping up after busing went into effect? Just a thought.


So, you connect busing to babies born out of wedlock, but when I connect a member of an anti-slavery party being elected President to the slave states leaving the union, you disagree with me.

----------


## Dianne

I just happened to be watching FOX News a few moments ago.    I have to admit, I'm not a history buff.    But I did learn, that for almost 100 years slavery ran under the United States flag.     The Confederate flag came about when the South wished to seceed from the United States.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Originally Posted by *ChristianAnarchist*  
>                  And I checked those "other" sources you cited  and NONE of them point to any actual numbers or study to support the BS  claim.  One of those you cited further went on to say that the "highest"  number of slaves rose to 20% of the population.  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???
> 
> It's BS, BS, BS, BS, BS!!!
> 			
> 		
> 
> 
> I have no idea whether those numbers (20 & 43) are correct, but it would not be at all difficult to reconcile them.
> ...


Um, you kinda forgot about the RICH PEOPLE point I made...  Only people with money could afford to own slaves and your numbers assume that the 43% of households would have the funds to own a slave if they want to.  Indeed, there were some rich people who did not want slaves and did not believe in the institution.

Your numbers (based on the fictitious numbers cited in the stories) prove my point quite clearly.  You would need to believe that 43% of all households at that time were in the wealthy class.  Your blacksmiths, bartenders, stage coach drivers, and pretty much most of those that society needs to get by would have to be able to afford slaves (at least a good portion of them would).  This is not the reality of any society.  Only a small percentage of any city would fall into the wealthy category (I am going to guess 12% without even so much as a google search - prove me wrong...)

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> I just happened to be watching FOX News a few moments ago.    I have to admit, I'm not a history buff.    But I did learn, that for almost 100 years slavery ran under the United States flag.     The Confederate flag came about when the South wished to seceed from the United States.


Slavery was legal in this country for 224 years under the US flag and it's colonial predecessors. Slave boats flew it.  The confederate battle flags flew for the last 4 years of that and were never flown on a slave ship.

The emancipation declaration signed by Lincoln, while credited with ending slavery, in fact did nothing.  The north was exempt and had more slaves than the south.

Here's what the lefties want to go after next:

Go ISIS on Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Ban Gone with the wind
Some kind of white rice
Aunt Jamima Syrup

-t

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Um, you kinda forgot about the RICH PEOPLE point I made...  Only people with money could afford to own slaves and your numbers assume that the 43% of households would have the funds to own a slave if they want to.  Indeed, there were some rich people who did not want slaves and did not believe in the institution.
> 
> Your numbers (based on the fictitious numbers cited in the stories) prove my point quite clearly.  You would need to believe that 43% of all households at that time were in the wealthy class.  Your blacksmiths, bartenders, stage coach drivers, and pretty much most of those that society needs to get by would have to be able to afford slaves (at least a good portion of them would).  This is not the reality of any society.  Only a small percentage of any city would fall into the wealthy category (I am going to guess 12% without even so much as a google search - prove me wrong...)


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.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Four of the five states that I can find primary sources for clearly seceded over slavery.


Among other grievances.




> Virginia certainly had no problem being associated with a group of states that stated their desires to secede to preserve slavery.


Virginia was being threatened by Lincoln's government with invasion if they didn't join in and send their sons to invade the slave-holding states. Given the choice, I would have told Uncle Sam to go pound sand and join the other side as well, even though I have greater sympathies with the abolitionists on the slave issue both morally and theologically speaking.




> How dare I go into the public schools and fight the system from within?  I should just let America's children never hear about liberty and just teach it to my own children and write blog posts on the internet.


The system will more likely change you, or otherwise spew you out when it gets wind of what you are doing, poison trees don't yield good fruit. I'm pretty well convinced that the current public school system needs to wither on the vine and private institutions and home-schooling need to replace it, particularly at the elementary levels.




> And like in the case of Bush's war, I don't have to like Saddam Hussein to oppose the war.


Not liking Saddam Hussein is fine, I didn't either, but validating the rationale for his ouster by playing into it, particularly if it is either false or true but misleading, is another matter entirely.




> I'm not defending the Union.


I believe you are skeptical about Lincoln, but apart from that you have generally met all of the qualifications of a Union apologist, at least with regard to the Civil War.




> I've read some of Dilorenzo's articles on LRC, I wasn't convinced.


I've read all of his books, as well as his articles, I was.




> So, you connect busing to babies born out of wedlock, but when I connect a member of an anti-slavery party being elected President to the slave states leaving the union, you disagree with me.


Yep, you got it. Busing destroyed both black and lower to middle class white communities by government fiat, and further aggravated existing hostilities. Blacks actually had a lower divorce rate than whites prior to the Civil Rights movement. You can blame a good chunk of this on Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, but that was also heavily intertwined with the Civil Rights movement and was not opposed by it. 

Extreme rhetoric from the Abolitionist movement probably scared some politicians involved in drafting the declarations of secession, especially in South Carolina and Georgia, which were the most radical states on that front, but ignoring the economic angle as it pertains to both the southern agrarians and the northern industrialists is tantamount to rewriting history, a hallmark of the dominant Marxist tendencies of the current education system. Whether intentionally or not, you and others on this thread are playing into it.

----------


## 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....
> ...

----------


## 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.

----------


## Smitty

Rand definitely isn't curing anyone's apathy.

----------


## Wilf

> Rand definitely isn't curing anyone's apathy *right now*.


Fixed

----------


## hells_unicorn

> 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.


Rand is still getting my vote, and I know precisely why he did this, and the answer is the same one he gave to Rush Limbaugh, he doesn't believe the GOP can win an election without making inroads among minority voters. Demographically speaking, a Republican could still win an election if they took a huge majority of the white vote, but in a decade or so, that won't be the case.

I don't see a single Republican or Democrat running for office that is openly sticking up for the Battle Flag, save maybe Jim Webb who is not getting my vote and Donald Trump who is a complete joke. Rand is still getting my vote, though I definitely don't like that he has to do stuff like this.

----------


## Crashland

> 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.


I agree that there is an excitement problem, but if there was anyone who did what you are proposing, it was Ron Paul, and we all know how far that got him. Rand will never win if he runs like Ron did.

----------


## Smitty

> Rand is still getting my vote, and I know precisely why he did this, and the answer is the same one he gave to Rush Limbaugh, he doesn't believe the GOP can win an election without making inroads among minority voters.


I guess he needs to speak up and endorse this too. It might get him another 2 dozen votes.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-26-06-31-12

----------


## givemeliberty2010

> 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.


As I mentioned before, the South cared about gaining more territory. Look at the history of John Tyler and Texas and James K. Polk and the Mexican-American War as well as Franklin Pierce, Jefferson Davis and Cuba. They did not want the Northern states telling them what territory they could go after and what they could do with it. Hence the drive to keep the number of states 50/50. A majority is not enough for a Constitutional amendment  to abolish slavery, but a majority can influence the territories (which can in turn become states).

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I guess he needs to speak up and endorse this too. It might get him another 2 dozen votes.
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-26-06-31-12


The quickest way to doom your own cause is to begin a circular firing squad. If you think that Rand can fully tout the old confederate cause, right or wrong, and prevail, you don't understand the problem this country has. When you come to realize that nearly half of the white youth vote has been conditioned to be ethnically masochistic to the point of psychopathology, then you'll begin to see the problem.

We're on the same page here in principle, but there is a very real danger in setting our zeal against our reason. Just think about it.

----------


## Okie RP fan

I've been really disappointed with many Libertarians and Conservatives take on the rebel flag. 
Many have bought into the mantra that the flag caused the crime, literally as if the flag pulled the trigger and taking it down will bring back the lives of those lost. 

Secondly, the "Svastika" as it's known in Hindi had been around for thousands of years, even Native American cultures utilized the symbol. 
It took just one government in the early 20th century to take it and make it their own, now it's a symbol of hatred no matter where you go or how you use it. It's basically banned, for all intents and purposes. 
My point is, we're going to ignore the thousands of years of history and use by other cultures of a SYMBOL just because a few lunatics used it for their own causes? That's it, just like that? In the same respect, the rebel flag has become a symbol of rebellious nature, or even just "Southern pride" to many. What I'm saying is, IT'S A SYMBOL, and symbols have different meanings to different people. 

The U.S.A flag is a symbol of oppression and drone striking women and children to many in the Middle East. I want it taken down because of that. Now, what's the next step?  
All the meanwhile we were having a national debate over an old flag, so much else was going on, particularly with TPP. Don't look at the man behind the curtain folks. This is not like Libertarians to be hoodwinked, and so many of us were with this flag nonsense.

----------


## Carlybee

> I've been really disappointed with many Libertarians and Conservatives take on the rebel flag. 
> Many have bought into the mantra that the flag caused the crime, literally as if the flag pulled the trigger and taking it down will bring back the lives of those lost. 
> 
> Secondly, the "Svastika" as it's known in Hindi had been around for thousands of years, even Native American cultures utilized the symbol. 
> It took just one government in the early 20th century to take it and make it their own, now it's a symbol of hatred no matter where you go or how you use it. It's basically banned, for all intents and purposes. 
> My point is, we're going to ignore the thousands of years of history and use by other cultures of a SYMBOL just because a few lunatics used it for their own causes? That's it, just like that? In the same respect, the rebel flag has become a symbol of rebellious nature, or even just "Southern pride" to many. What I'm saying is, IT'S A SYMBOL, and symbols have different meanings to different people. 
> 
> The U.S.A flag is a symbol of oppression and drone striking women and children to many in the Middle East. I want it taken down because of that. Now, what's the next step?  
> All the meanwhile we were having a national debate over an old flag, so much else was going on, particularly with TPP. Don't look at the man behind the curtain folks. This is not like Libertarians to be hoodwinked, and so many of us were with this flag nonsense.



Not me. I was practically called a racist for protesting against this flag BS. I'm still against the removal. I don't agree with Rand. I don't believe the flag itself is a symbol of slavery. Slavery was slavery, regardless of what flags were flown. Slavery no longer exists. Modern day blacks are not slaves...other than to the system as we all are.  We already see the snowball effect to the point of just getting stupid.
My tax dollars will get to go toward renaming schools and tearing down statues and rewriting history and God only knows whatever else Orwellian crap will come down the pike, and there will still be those who say it was the right thing to do. I sometimes can't believe I live in such an age of non reason.

----------


## twomp

Dear boobus,

The media would like you guys to argue about Gay marriage this week. Thanks for your compliance.

Signed,

The MSM

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Dear boobus,
> 
> The media would like you guys to argue about Gay marriage this week. Thanks for your compliance.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> The MSM


p.s. Our employers, TPTB appreciate you looking over there, and not over here.

----------


## kahless

> Dear boobus,
> 
> The media would like you guys to argue about Gay marriage this week. Thanks for your compliance.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> The MSM





> p.s. Our employers, TPTB appreciate you looking over there, and not over here.


Normally I would agree but this weeks events were not distractions and rather actual legislative actions.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Normally I would agree but this weeks events were not distractions and rather actual legislative actions.


In the Grand Scheme of issues today, this week's "big news" was trivial at best.  Let's not look at the horrors of US foreign policy, grand scale theft of domestic policy, escalating police abuse!  There's a flag over thar!

----------


## Danke

> A symbol doesn't mean only what YOU say it means. Anyone with a sense of decency will choose not to display something that is commonly taken to be a symbol of slavery, even if they don't mean it that way. What matters when you communicate aren't the words you say, but how they are understood. So if you are trying to make a statement by displaying the confederate flag, please use your brain first for two seconds.


A lot of people take offense at the Isreali flag and the U.S. Flag...what should be done about that?

----------


## William Tell



----------


## Theocrat

> 


I knew it! The American Flag represents *racism*!

----------


## FloralScent

> 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.





> Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation  before it is too late... It means the history of this heroic struggle  will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern  schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of  the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to  regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit  objects for derision... It is said slavery is all we are fighting for,  and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we  deny, *slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the  pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form  of government*, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.


--- Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864, writing on what would happen if the Confederacy were to be defeated.

He must've had a crystal ball.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> --- Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864, writing on what would happen if the Confederacy were to be defeated.
> 
> He must've had a crystal ball.


Robert Louis Dabney's "In Defense of Virginia and The South" made a very similar point, and also detailed the history of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, and particularly noted how the New England colonies were the primary beneficiaries of the slave trade monetarily. It's a very good read and anyone with interest in the history of the Civil War should read it.

----------


## Carlybee

We'll nothing can ever justify the slave trade, but Mark Twain told of how as children they didn't even know it was wrong..that's how ingrained it was in the culture.

----------


## RandallFan

It is seen as Rand piling on with Mitch. 

Mitch McConnell wouldn't even be in the senate if he was promoting this in 2008. 
*
What does Matt Bevin's black running mate say?
*
I imagine this could be a big divisive issue.

----------


## goldwater's ghost

I originally was very upset with Rand for kowtowing to the liberal assault on the flag. I thought he was making a huge mistake too. At first I thought it was because he believed he was going to draw some African American votes but upon reflection I think it's a way to cut off the media from painting him as a racist the way they did his father. I think his campaign is doing everything possible to make sure that the media can't stick the racist label on him. He's got a year plus of media interviews and debates and the last thing he wants is to spend half that time defending himself against scurrilous charges

Whether that a good strategy or not, I'm not sure. Personally I'm waiting for a candidate to some day challenge the MSM on what constitutes racism. We really need to start saying fu*k you to people who indiscriminately call others racist

----------


## Brett85

I don't understand the love that people have here for the Confederacy and what the Confederacy has to do with libertarianism.  Rand is refusing to speak out in favor of religious liberty and defend the religious liberty of people who are being fined or imprisoned by the government simply for standing up for their beliefs, yet people here have no problem with that.  Yet if Rand doesn't stand up for a flag that represented slavery, all hell breaks loose.

----------


## Aratus

The social structure of the Confederacy and the laws that legalized slavery were not at all any way Libertarian.
There is more of an overlap between Libertarians and Ayn Rand's Objectivists and less of one between slavery's
advocates and Libertarians.  Two things are happening, the Southern battle flag is being taken down from public
buildings, and some of the companies and corporations that had it on their products are not continuing to do that.
I think things are quieting down somewhat here, we need to be calm & reasoned. Again, the deaths of those nine
people in that Charleston, South Carolina church are a national tragedy. I do remember the events of the 1960s.

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't understand the love that people have here for the Confederacy and what the Confederacy has to do with libertarianism.  Rand is refusing to speak out in favor of religious liberty and defend the religious liberty of people who are being fined or imprisoned by the government simply for standing up for their beliefs, yet people here have no problem with that.  Yet if Rand doesn't stand up for a flag that represented slavery, all hell breaks loose.


The flag does not represent slavery. Slavery no longer exists. The flag represents honoring the thousands of lives lost. No one is stopping black people from flying a flag to memorialize those who were slaves and no one would have an issue with that. A flag honoring the dead does not mean people support slavery except for idiots like Dylann Roof and his ilk. Why give him the power to set the conversation?  The flag does not mean now what it meant then because then is long gone. But ultimately the issue is about censorship and we are seeing the domino effect of that censorship. Censorship is certainly not libertarian and has Orwellian undertones.

----------


## Brett85

> The flag does not represent slavery. Slavery no longer exists. The flag represents honoring the thousands of lives lost. No one is stopping black people from flying a flag to memorialize those who were slaves and no one would have an issue with that. A flag honoring the dead does not mean people support slavery except for idiots like Dylann Roof and his ilk. Why give him the power to set the conversation?  The flag does not mean now what it meant then because then is long gone. But ultimately the issue is about censorship and we are seeing the domino effect of that censorship. Censorship is certainly not libertarian and has Orwellian undertones.


I think like Rand said, the flag can be displayed in a historical museum.  I don't think it needs to be displayed at state capitol buildings.

----------


## LawnWake

Regardless of what some of you identify the Confederate flag with _personally_, surely you must understand that it's not the government's place to endorse any particular culture or expression of culture in public buildings and the public sphere? Surely? Or would you be fine with it if a local court was flying the Darwin fish or the rainbow flag?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I don't understand the love that people have here for the Confederacy and what the Confederacy has to do with libertarianism.  Rand is refusing to speak out in favor of religious liberty and defend the religious liberty of people who are being fined or imprisoned by the government simply for standing up for their beliefs, yet people here have no problem with that.  Yet if Rand doesn't stand up for a flag that represented slavery, all hell breaks loose.


The Confederacy and its flag represents active resistance to federal or government tyranny. Both sides practiced slavery and held white supremacist views, so that is not the main issue. The South remembers the conflict as the War of Northern Aggression because, well, the North was the aggressor, and the South was fighting to get out from under the tyrant's heel. The North's military assault to deny the self determination of the South in their decision to secede, represents force.

That is the real reason why the cultural PC forces, who believe in the total state, have put on a full court press to discredit and marginalize it. The falsification of history involved in doing that represents fraud. So the libertarian link to supporting the Confederacy is based on our opposition to introducing force and fraud to resolve conflicts.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I think like Rand said, the flag can be displayed in a historical museum.  I don't think it needs to be displayed at state capitol buildings.


And if most people in another state think it needs to be displayed at state capitol buildings, what is that to you? Can different states reach different decisions as to what symbols it will display? Imagine telling a gay activist group they shouldn't display their symbols in public, that they need to put them in a museum or closet. The issue is some people are forcing other people to marginalize themselves. 

You forget the PC side is never satisfied. 15 years ago another compromise was arrived at, only to see the "bring it down" side revise the subject again now. No doubt they will later demand the museums be closed or torn down, or even mentioning the word "confederacy" will be considered taboo, or the next n-word.

----------


## LawnWake

> Can different states reach different decisions as to what symbols it will display?


Obamacare was a bad idea when it was Romneycare too.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> I originally was very upset with Rand for kowtowing to the liberal assault on the flag. I thought he was making a huge mistake too. At first I thought it was because he believed he was going to draw some African American votes but upon reflection I think it's a way to cut off the media from painting him as a racist the way they did his father. I think his campaign is doing everything possible to make sure that the media can't stick the racist label on him. He's got a year plus of media interviews and debates and the last thing he wants is to spend half that time defending himself against scurrilous charges
> 
> Whether that a good strategy or not, I'm not sure. Personally I'm waiting for a candidate to some day challenge the MSM on what constitutes racism. We really need to start saying fu*k you to people who indiscriminately call others racist


In light of Ron Paul's unsuccessful runs, we can reluctantly concede Rand's approach needed to be tried to see if it makes any difference in the GOP primaries. Those advocating for this path must be honest enough to conclude, say next spring, that if Rand's compromises produces basically the same results in the Republican race, that we need to go back to backing an openly principled candidate who doesn't care how the MSM tries to cast him, on race or on other matters.

----------


## Carlybee

> Regardless of what some of you identify the Confederate flag with _personally_, surely you must understand that it's not the government's place to endorse any particular culture or expression of culture in public buildings and the public sphere? Surely? Or would you be fine with it if a local court was flying the Darwin fish or the rainbow flag?



They fly the US flag don't they?  What is that if not representative of many aspects of American culture...mostly the war culture.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> In light of Ron Paul's unsuccessful runs, we can reluctantly concede Rand's approach needed to be tried to see if it makes any difference in the GOP primaries.


Ron Paul stood by his principles, I respected that, so much so that I joined the republican party, donated money to his campaign, and voted for him in the primary.

Rand Paul does not stand by his principles, he panders, so he lost my vote, I will not donate money to him, and I wont waste my time to vote in the primary.

I really hope he picks up 2 people for everyone 1 of me he loses. I understand why he does what he does, that he is playing politics, but it makes me sick. 

To me, the confederate flag is a symbol of resistance against a federal government that overstepped its bounds.

----------


## liveandletlive

The Lost Cause should not be part of the libertarian/conservative platform. Enough already with this distraction of an issue.

----------


## LawnWake

> They fly the US flag don't they?  What is that if not representative of many aspects of American culture...mostly the war culture.


Within the context of public buildings, the American flag is not a cultural symbol as much as a legal symbol. It also encompasses your right to a fair trial, etc. It's not an endorsement of the culture of only a particular subset of people, but a legal banner that also legally represents minorities, or even people that burn that flag.

The American flag is really only a cultural symbol internationally or on private property.

The Confederate flag is being upheld as a cultural symbol by its proponents. And the state has no right to endorse their herritage over someone else's. If the Confederate flag is up there, why not fly it right next to the rainbow flag? Or the anarcho-communist flag?

----------


## westkyle

> I don't understand the love that people have here for the Confederacy and what the Confederacy has to do with libertarianism.  Rand is refusing to speak out in favor of religious liberty and defend the religious liberty of people who are being fined or imprisoned by the government simply for standing up for their beliefs, yet people here have no problem with that.  Yet if Rand doesn't stand up for a flag that represented slavery, all hell breaks loose.


Do you have a list of "people who are being fined or imprisoned by the government for standing up for their beliefs"?  I remember the wedding cake thing, but that's about it.  The people refusing service were in their right to do so, IMO.

----------


## AuH20

> Within the context of public buildings, the American flag is not a cultural symbol as much as a legal symbol. It also encompasses your right to a fair trial, etc. It's not an endorsement of the culture of only a particular subset of people, but a legal banner that also legally represents minorities, or even people that burn that flag.
> 
> The American flag is really only a cultural symbol internationally or on private property.
> 
> The Confederate flag is being upheld as a cultural symbol by its proponents. *And the state has no right to endorse their herritage over someone else's.* If the Confederate flag is up there, why not fly it right next to the rainbow flag? Or the anarcho-communist flag?


The residents of the state decided so.

----------


## Aratus

> The Lost Cause should not be part of the libertarian/conservative platform. Enough already with this distraction of an issue.


There is an ironic twist to this, one of he individuals the "Lost Cause" scholars lionized clearly wanted our union to come together again after his surrender. There 
were times when he could have said or did something highly inflammatory after April of 1865 but he chose not to.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVFoZFH1sLM

----------


## LawnWake

> The residents of the state decided so.


So if 51% believes in something, 49% should be forced to co-endorse it, gotcha.

Statism isn't on a state level isn't good. It's only somewhat better than on a federal level, but it's still pretty bad.

----------


## Carlybee

> Within the context of public buildings, the American flag is not a cultural symbol as much as a legal symbol. It also encompasses your right to a fair trial, etc. It's not an endorsement of the culture of only a particular subset of people, but a legal banner that also legally represents minorities, or even people that burn that flag.
> 
> The American flag is really only a cultural symbol internationally or on private property.
> 
> The Confederate flag is being upheld as a cultural symbol by its proponents. And the state has no right to endorse their herritage over someone else's. If the Confederate flag is up there, why not fly it right next to the rainbow flag? Or the anarcho-communist flag?


If the majority of SC consists of people with that heritage, I would say it is up to the people of SC to decide.

As for the US Flag being a "legal" symbol...how does a flag encompass my right to a fair trial? LOL.   That would be the Bill of Rights...not a flag. If anything the US Flag is a battle symbol. It may be supposed to stand for freedom, but it has flown over many battles that served to oppress.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> So if 51% believes in something, 49% should be forced to co-endorse it, gotcha.
> 
> Statism isn't on a state level isn't good. It's only somewhat better than on a federal level, but it's still pretty bad.


This is a hypocritical objection, the majority foisted Old Glory on the rest of the country and that so-called American flag is a far bigger symbol of Statism than the bars and stripes ever were.

----------


## Brett85

> And if most people in another state think it needs to be displayed at state capitol buildings, what is that to you? *Can different states reach different decisions as to what symbols it will display?.*


Sure, I think that it's a state issue.

----------


## Brett85

> Do you have a list of "people who are being fined or imprisoned by the government for standing up for their beliefs"?  I remember the wedding cake thing, but that's about it.  The people refusing service were in their right to do so, IMO.


There are many examples.  This is another.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...-weddings.html

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

So let me get this straight. Slavery in America started in 1619. The civil war started in 1861, a full 242 years later, 85 years as the United States. Slavery exists during the 4 years of the Civil War in the south and it's the confederate flag that symbolizes slavery, when it was under the U.S. flag 20x+ longer? Furthermore, the emancipation proclamation could not have been a cause of the civil war, because it was signed in 1863. The civil war started in 1861.

----------


## Brett85

People have a weird combination of views on this forum:  Pro Confederacy and pro gay marriage and pro homosexuality.  Do you realize that the Confederacy didn't allow gay marriage and even had laws against sodomy?

----------


## LibertyRevolution

> People have a weird combination of views on this forum:  Pro Confederacy and pro gay marriage and pro homosexuality.  Do you realize that the Confederacy didn't allow gay marriage and even had laws against sodomy?


A lot of us are pro states rights and against the federal government working outside the powers specifically granted to it in the constitution.

The governments job is to protect the rights and freedom of the minority against the will of the majority.
As much as watching gay people makes me uncomfortable, they have every right to be gay, so the government did its job by protecting it.

I just don't think it should have ever been a government issue in the first place... 
Neither of those harms others or their property, so there should be no regulation of it at all.

As a libertarian I find myself pro a lot of $#@! that I wouldn't choose to do myself, but I respect others right to choose to do it..
That is what freedom is. You don't need freedom to fallow the status quo..

----------


## RonPaulMall

> The Confederate flag is being upheld as a cultural symbol by its proponents. And the state has no right to endorse their herritage over someone else's. If the Confederate flag is up there, why not fly it right next to the rainbow flag? Or the anarcho-communist flag?


Well, in this specific context it would be because Rainbow Flags or the Anarcho Capitalist Flag have nothing to do with a monument to the most important war in South Carolina's history. This is not some random cultural fad or political principle that is being remembered. It was the most devastating war in American had ever had. The rampaging Union troops but the unfinished capitol building that stands next to the monument to the torch when they entered the city.

----------


## Carlybee

> People have a weird combination of views on this forum:  Pro Confederacy and pro gay marriage and pro homosexuality.  Do you realize that the Confederacy didn't allow gay marriage and even had laws against sodomy?


Why do you continue to allege that just because someone doesn't believe in censoring a flag, that makes them pro-confederacy? The Confederacy is non existent. This is about censorship and future censorship. Seriously get your facts straight. You are trying to imply in a back handed manner that if one chooses to support the flag not being removed they are somehow supporting slavery. Which also no longer exists.

----------


## kahless

> Why do you continue to allege that just because someone doesn't believe in censoring a flag, that makes them pro-confederacy? The Confederacy is non existent. This is about censorship and future censorship. Seriously get your facts straight. You are trying to imply in a back handed manner that if one chooses to support the flag not being removed they are somehow supporting slavery. Which also no longer exists.


Never thought I would see the day that much of RPF has turned into what amounts to MSNBC forums if they actually existed. 

Sometimes I wonder was there some hidden memo or discussion in the grassroots that came out when Rand started running that people are taking a bit too far or is it simply the national dialog has moved people to be irrational on these issues in the last 8 years I have been coming here.

----------


## Brett85

> Why do you continue to allege that just because someone doesn't believe in censoring a flag, that makes them pro-confederacy? The Confederacy is non existent. This is about censorship and future censorship. Seriously get your facts straight. You are trying to imply in a back handed manner that if one chooses to support the flag not being removed they are somehow supporting slavery. Which also no longer exists.


I don't really care about the flag and whether it should be flown.  Since I don't care about the issue I don't have a problem with Rand saying that it shouldn't be flown in state capitol buildings.  It was the smart thing to say.  Individual citizens can still fly the flag if they want to.

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't really care about the flag and whether it should be flown.  Since I don't care about the issue I don't have a problem with Rand saying that it shouldn't be flown in state capitol buildings.  It was the smart thing to say.  Individual citizens can still fly the flag if they want to.


Really? You think it's going to stop at state buildings? They want to dig up graves and they are rebranding toys. Toys.  Yours is a naive viewpoint and Rand's is politically expedient. However, let it play out until they start rewriting the history books and burn the old ones.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> People have a weird combination of views on this forum:  Pro Confederacy and pro gay marriage and pro homosexuality.  Do you realize that the Confederacy didn't allow gay marriage and even had laws against sodomy?


Uh, where did I ever give you the impression that I was in favor of disease spreading sodomites parading around as though they were married? I sure can't remember ever saying that.

----------


## Origanalist

> I don't really care about the flag and whether it should be flown.  Since I don't care about the issue I don't have a problem with Rand saying that it shouldn't be flown in state capitol buildings.  It was the smart thing to say.  Individual citizens can still fly the flag if they want to.


What did your RPF name used to be?

----------


## Brett85

> What did your RPF name used to be?


Traditional Conservative.  I changed it because I don't agree with today's conservatives on issues like foreign policy and drug policy and don't want to be confused with them.

----------


## Origanalist

> Traditional Conservative.  I changed it because I don't agree with today's conservatives on issues like foreign policy and drug policy and don't want to be confused with them.


Me either. The changing meaning of words......

----------


## Aratus

i can't blame Brett85  at all because Conservatism runs the political spectrum from Edmund Burke's High Tory defense of the monarchy 
as an institution in the late 1800s  to several of Mitt Romney's stances that are actually to Edward Moore Kennedy's right that aren't too
contradictory.  Even basic words change over time.  A liberal in FDR's day is not to be confused with a classic Liberal in economics circa
the time of Edmund Burke.  As the flag controversy erupted, the phrase "halcyon days of yore" came to the surface of my Id as I wished
we could do a repeat of 2oo8 or 2o12 but without the horrid baggage. The TIME Op~Ed piece is a game changer, yes! I am unoriginal often!

----------


## phill4paul

Another Confederate flag taken down. This time at a frikken Civil War historical site!




> *Fort Sumter furls its Confederate flags, probably forever*
> 
> For more than 40 years, Fort Sumter has flown six flags, including four banners that flew overhead during the four years of America’s Civil War.
> 
> But the recent slayings of nine black parishioners during a Bible study inside the Emanuel AME Church prompted the fort to take down four of those flags, including two flags of the Confederacy, as a gesture of sympathy and sensitivity.
> 
> The suspect being held in the shooting reportedly said he hoped to start a race war, and his actions have prompted South Carolina, other Southern states and the nation to re-evaluate policies regarding public displays of the Confederate flag.
> 
> Tim Stone, superintendent of the Fort Sumter-Fort Moultrie National Monument, said Fort Sumter’s four flags were lowered the day after the shooting.
> ...


http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...obably-forever

----------


## Southron

> Another Confederate flag taken down. This time at a frikken Civil War historical site!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...obably-forever


Fort Sumter of all places...sheesh.

----------


## Philadelphia76

Smart move by Rand IMHO. I don't see how he had any other reasonable choice- _especially_ in-light of the Civil Rights Act controversy a few years back (as mentioned by a few).

Personally- as a Southerner (South Carolina-based) I am very proud of my 4 ancestors (including 2 in the famed 15th Alabama) who fought for the Confederacy. I just purchased a hand-sewn Confederate battle flag to fold neatly and stow away with various artifacts (uniforms, bowie knife, buttons, belt-buckles, etc.) and "unit histories" and service records for all of them. I will of course in my own way try to educate my nephew and nieces (as well as any children I may have) about the true history of the Confederacy and the Civil War, etc. 

That said- I *DO* think it is time to shift the Confederacy to "history"/museums (as well as private collections)- where it might just over time actually be treated more fairly- and out of the "modern vernacular" where it is too often abused/misrepresented by sickos and used as a "lightning rod" issue by the superficial media. Additionally- though every company is free to do what they choose (including the company I bought my Confederate flag from of course)- on the whole I've never been a huge fan of the "commercialization" of the Confederate flag to begin with. Fewer patches, trucker caps, lunch boxes, mouse pads, etc. with its depiction the better IMHO. There has to be a better way to honor the sacrifice/struggle beyond just some "Hey man- I'm a rebel!!!" type statement via merchandise.

----------


## Sam I am

> So let me get this straight. Slavery in America started in 1619. The civil war started in 1861, a full 242 years later, 85 years as the United States. Slavery exists during the 4 years of the Civil War in the south and it's the confederate flag that symbolizes slavery, when it was under the U.S. flag 20x+ longer? Furthermore, the emancipation proclamation could not have been a cause of the civil war, because it was signed in 1863. The civil war started in 1861.


If you feel like mincing numbers like that then here's one.  Slavery has been illegal in the United States for an infinity longer time than it's been illegal in the confederacy.

----------


## AuH20

> I don't really care about the flag and whether it should be flown.  Since I don't care about the issue I don't have a problem with Rand saying that it shouldn't be flown in state capitol buildings.  It was the smart thing to say.  *Individual citizens can still fly the flag if they want to.*


For how long will that be the case?

----------


## hbenthow

What does everyone here think of the statements made in this video?

----------


## osan

> I think there should be a new flag that solely symbolizes states rights and peace amongst races with an effort to make it go viral.  Then those bitching about the Confederate flag *would not be able to use race as an issue in the dialog over states rights*.


Wanna bet?

----------


## Origanalist

> Wanna bet?


Not on any odds.

----------


## Carlybee

A Walter Williams op/ed from 1999.





> Misplaced priorities
> 
> 
> NOW THAT THE SCHOOLS that black youngsters attend are educating well, the devastating crime rate in black communities has abated and the black family has recovered its past stability, the NAACP can now focus on perceived indignities such as the Confederate battle flag flying over the Capitol Dome of South Carolina.
> 
> The NAACP has done just that with a proclamation that calls for boycotts and economic sanctions against South Carolina. Surely, the NAACP leadership can't really believe that blacks have reached a point where we can now focus attention and expend resources on social fine-tuning.
> 
> It must be ignorance, an ignorance I once shared. The NAACP crowd sees the Confederate battle flag as a flag of slavery. If that's so, the United States flag is even more so. Slavery thrived under the United States flag from 1776 to 1865, while under the Confederate flag a mere four years. 
> 
> ...

----------


## r3volution 3.0

_"Therefore  I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our  progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost  at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at  Waterloo._"
--Lord Acton to Robert E. Lee

----------


## philipped

> What does everyone here think of the statements made in this video?


I watched a couple of this guys videos, and as a fellow black male all I can say is he might've easily been inspiration for Aaron McGruder's "Uncle Rucus" The Boondocks TV show character.

----------


## garyallen59

> I watched a couple of this guys videos, and as a fellow black male all I can say is he might've easily been inspiration for Aaron McGruder's "Uncle Rucus" The Boondocks TV show character.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> I watched a couple of this guys videos, and as a fellow black male all I can say is he might've easily been inspiration for Aaron McGruder's "Uncle Rucus" The Boondocks TV show character.


Or maybe about 90% of what is taught about the "revolutionary war" is BS.  Propaganda written by the winners of the war...  NAH...  It CAN'T be...  (can it)???

----------

