Mitt Romney: Take Down the Confederate Flag Immediately

[JK/SEA]

Thank you, Mitt, for saying this at a time when the party is already deeply divided. Now we're going to be fighting over this nonsense.

Mitts just trying to expand the base....

 

[William Tell]

this is getting good..............I wonder how it feels to be so willfully ignorant. Good vs Evil. ROFL So simplistic.

Although the Confederate states lost, they were never punished enough and this allowed white attitudes of racial superiority to flourish in the South, even today, 150 years after that war.

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/06/19/south-carolina-shootings/28982177/



Lemme guess. This fool is white?

Not punished enough? What is his point, that Yankee soldiers should have raped and killed more black women in New Orleans than they did? What a moron. Punishing the South more would have hurt blacks more than whites. And caused far more racial strife.

 

[sparebulb]

Mitts just trying to expand the base....

Willard proves that America is ready for a single political party system.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

And then of course, no one wants to talk about the 5 union states that still maintained slavery AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation. Those being Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia.

I'm pretty sure West Virginia was admitted as a free state. But notice how most of those states you mentioned had pro-CSA factions. It was the slave states that the CSA appealed to.

'A'.

'B'.

Therefore 'A' -> 'B'.

A FAIL-plex, i.e. FAIL^FAIL.

No soup for you.

You don't think the two might be connected?

Only 7 of the 15 slave states seceded because of the election of Lincoln.

But a majority did secede when Lincoln told them they would have to invade and kill their neighbors.

If the CSA was all about freedom from the Federal government then why was it only the slave states that joined it? Why didn't Northerners who voted against Lincoln rally behind the Southern cause?

Mitts just trying to expand the base....

How dare he!

 

[phill4paul]

If the CSA was all about freedom from the Federal government then why was it only the slave states that joined it? Why didn't Northerners who voted against Lincoln rally behind the Southern cause?

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

 

[Occam's Banana]

Why didn't Northerners who voted against Lincoln rally behind the Southern cause?

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

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

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

 

[phill4paul]

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

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

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

And let's not forget the Draft Riots of 1863. Or the fact that New York Mayor, Fernando Wood, called for the city to secede from the Union.

 

[William Tell]

Wow, that flag is clearly racist. Next thing you'll be telling me that the U.S flag flew over the oppression of natives, and Japanese Americans. And that the Confederate army did not have racial segregation, while the Union army did.

 

[Occam's Banana]

And let's not forget the Draft Riots of 1863. Or the fact that New York Mayor, Fernando Wood, called for the city to secede from the Union.

And all the journalists, newspaper editors and others who were jailed (sans habeas corpus, courtesy of Mr. Lincoln) because they were publically critical of or opposed to the war.

IIRC, they numbered in the thousands ...

 

[phill4paul]

And all the journalists, newspaper editors and others who were jailed (sans habeas corpus, courtesy of Mr. Lincoln) because they were publically critical of or opposed to the war.

IIRC, they numbered in the thousands ...

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

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[phill4paul]

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

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

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

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

 

[William Tell]

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

I believe conscription did not take place until 1862.

 

[phill4paul]

I believe conscription did not take place until 1862.

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

 

[Inkblots]

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

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

 

[Occam's Banana]

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

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

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

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

And it was started because an abolitionist was elected President.

Lincoln was not an abolitionist.

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

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

 

[Southron]

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

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

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln was not an abolitionist.

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

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

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

 

[William Tell]

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

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

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

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

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