Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To be fair slavery existed under the stars and stripes for far longer.
She's just making racist comments. They just prove that they are the real racists. They are obsessed with racism because that is the only card they have left to explain their failure to climb up society's totem pole as have all the other ethnic groups. They simply must blame their failures on someone other than themselves. It's their "victim" mindset.
She's just making racist comments. They just prove that they are the real racists. They are obsessed with racism because that is the only card they have left to explain their failure to climb up society's totem pole as have all the other ethnic groups. They simply must blame their failures on someone other than themselves. It's their "victim" mindset.
Isn't the President Black? And there are a handful of black billionaires and several in the top 100 richest list in the U.S. If I'm not mistaken. I have never seen a Cherokee president or a Cherokee listed on those rich list. My grandmother is full Cherokee by the way and I'm very proud of my native blood (and my European blood too) so that's not an insult, just a realty to the crap your spitting about black people.
Pssst, the ignorant don't want to hear that, but most people know that it is true. The Stars and Stripes flew 89 years of slavery. The flag the are hollering about was a battle flag that flew for 4 years.
And it was a well known fact that the Confederacy was going to end the practice of slavery even if they won the war. I learned that in school in the 70's.
Congratulations. You flew the battle flag of a confederation that seceded and attacked the U.S. primarily for the purpose of preserving the chattel slavery of African-Americans (according to confederate Vice President Alexander Stevens). You are a great American.
Good post. This flag, due to it standing for attacking the US, is as repulsive IMO as a swastika.
And it was a well known fact that the Confederacy was going to end the practice of slavery even if they won the war. I learned that in school in the 70's.
Weird, what with them enshrining the institution in their gorram constitution - even going so far as to make sure that new territories couldn't join the Confederacy without also embracing slavery. ( Not exactly a "states rights" stance, but...)They offered abolition as a sup to France and England once they were cornered like rats, and even that happened over the enraged protests of their pro-slavery faction.
Good post. This flag, due to it standing for attacking the US, is as repulsive IMO as a swastika.
The question here is, who was attacking who?
It is certainly true that the south attacked Ft Sumter to dislodge the US military that was stationed in Charleston harbor. The question then is, was the Civil War caused by the attack on Ft Sumter?
More specifically, had South Carolina not fired on Ft Sumter, would Lincoln not have gone to war to "preserve the Union"?
If Lincoln would have gone to war with the south with or without the attack on Ft Sumter, then does it really make sense to say that the South started the war?
Isn't it logical to say that Lincoln was going to go to war regardless. And thus, wouldn't it also be logical to say that Lincoln started the war?
If it could be said that Lincoln was the cause of the Civil War, then what was Lincoln fighting the war for? To end slavery?
That may have been the eventual outcome of the war, but Lincoln said for years after the war began that he wouldn't interfere with slavery if the south would reenter the union.
Thus, isn't it more accurate to say that the war was fought over secession, and not over slavery?
Especially considering that there had been major threats for secession going back nearly to the founding of this nation. And all of those threats had basically nothing to do with slavery. And further, that every time someone spoke of secession long before the Civil War, many in the federal government would threaten military action.
For instance, when Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in 1798(63 years before the Civil War), Alexander Hamilton wanted to raise an army and occupy those states.
During the war of 1812, many northern states debated secession in something called the "Hartford Convention". In fact, they were going to make a peace treaty with Britain independently of the rest of the United States.
Had the war continued for much longer, or had the British expended more resources in the war. Many Northern states may have left the union in 1815.
Further, during the "Nullification crisis" of 1832, South Carolina practically seceded(they declared federal laws of no effect in their state). The only thing that prevented war then, was the negotiation of a new Tariff which South Carolina finally agreed to.
In fact, in 1832, the Vice president of the United States was John C. Calhoun. He resigned as vice president because of a disagreement he had with the President, Andrew Jackson, over secession.
Which led to a famous saying by Andrew Jackson. “John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body.”
Yes, the president of the United States told the vice president of the United States, that he would cut off his head if he attempted to secede. And that was nearly 30 years before the Civil War.
Thus, if we recognize that the real cause of the Civil War was the question over secession. And if we recognize that in many times in American history prior to the Civil War, entire states or regions had advocated secession(and in one case came really close to following through). Then the question is, even if the Civil War hadn't happened in 1861. And lets even pretend that slavery died on its own(because it would have). Does that mean that America never would have had a Civil War?
Look at it like this, the question over secession kept coming up over over and over again up until the Civil War. The Civil War effectively ended the question of secession. But had the Civil War not happened in 1861, then the secession question would have persisted. And wouldn't we have eventually had a group of states threatening to secede at a later time over a different issue?
I mean, aren't we still discussing the secession question to this day? And isn't the normal response by those who are opposed to secession, to declare that the Civil War ended the question over secession? But had the Civil War not happened, then the secession question most certainly would have continued to this day. It would have just bounced from one issue to the next to the next until someone finally tried to secede.
If you can follow all of that logic. Then you will understand that many of those who fly the Confederate flag, fly it for reasons that basically have little to nothing to do with the Confederacy itself. Rather, the Confederacy just represents certain ideas that they are attracted to.
For instance, to me, the Confederate flag represents independence. It represents contempt for the central government. Especially one that is willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people to maintain its power.
Further, to me, it is my way of reminding the federal government that many still carry on the spirit of resistance.
I mean, isn't that the saying about the Confederate flag, that it is flown by those who are still fighting a war that was lost more than 150 years ago?
Which really comes to the final two points.
First, as Thomas Jefferson said so long ago, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
And he also wrote, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."
And secondly, there is this misunderstanding about the Civil War that is so often repeated that I don't believe many even give it much thought. When someone says that the Civil War settled the question over secession, they are stating something which is not true, and has never been true.
Secession is nothing more than independence. Independence is not so much a thing, rather, it is an idea. And you cannot defeat ideas through force. I mean, what philosophical debate was ever settled with force?
That doesn't mean that force can't be useful in repressing and silencing ideas for a time. But the only way to win a philosophical debate, is to win it on philosophical grounds. You cannot win a philosophical debate with bombs and guns.
With that said, I want to leave you with two last ideas that you must recognize to be true.
First, we are all slaves. We may live in a rather benign form of slavery, but we are slaves nonetheless. Please watch this video to understand.
If we recognize that we are slaves. Then you will realize that there isn't much of a difference between a slave forced to work in the fields, and a man drafted into the military who is forced to fight and possibly die in a war he may not agree with. For that matter, would you have rathered been a slave circa 1850, or serving life in prison working daily on a chain gang circa 1900?
When a government forces you to do something against your will, it is making you a slave. Many will call the workers of today "wage slaves". Where the system is setup in a way that effectively forces you to work for someone else, for the benefit of someone else. That there is no practical way for anyone to be truly independent. Thus, the best any of us can hope for is to become the master, otherwise we will certainly become the slave.
Which reminds me of Lysander Spooner's remarks on democracy...
"Without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former."
Which leads me to my very last statement(if you have even made it this far). A wonderful quote by St. George Tucker....
"The love of freedom, sir, is an inborn sentiment, which the God of nature has planted deep in the heart: long may it be kept under by the arbitrary institutions of society; but at the first favorable moment, it springs forth, and flourishes with a vigor that defies all check. This celestial spark, which fires the breast of the savage, which glows in that of the philosopher, is not extinguished in the bosom of the slave. It may be buried in the embers; but it still lives; and the breath of knowledge kindles it to flame. Thus we find, sir, there have never been slaves in any country who have not seized the first favorable opportunity to revolt."
I am against, and have always been against slavery in all its forms. But I would fly the Confederate flag without any reservation at all. There is no better flag to show your contempt for the federal government. The Gadsden flag is also a good flag(IE, don't tread on me), but the modern tea-party that it has become associated with, tend to be a bunch of hypocritical statists.
Though, if I was to fly any flag right now. I would love to fly a flag emblazoned with an image of Abraham Lincoln and the words "Sic Semper Tyrannis". That should get the statists panties all in a bunch.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 08-27-2014 at 02:20 AM..
Not true just because you think it is. Funny that Andrew Jackson was going to hang Calhoun for even talk of treason. Calhoun backed down. Secession was considered treason. Don't believe me, read what Madison had to say. And I'm sure he knew a lot more about the Constitution than you do since he wrote the damn thing.
The father of the US Constitution considered secession "heresy" and considered it poisonous. Yeah right, I'm sure he considered it constitutional since he claimed it put "powder under the Constitution and Union" to blow it up.
Let me say two things. First, John C. Calhoun didn't back down on secession, because he never even advocated it to begin with. What Calhoun did advocate, was "nullification". And Calhoun preached nullification till the day he died. The nullification crisis of 1832 was certainly the doing of Calhoun, and South Carolina did eventually repeal its act of nullification. But they did so because the Congress changed the law in the "Compromise tariff of 1833".
And more interestingly. The act of Congress that supposedly gave the federal government the right to end South Carolina's nullification, was called "the force bill". South Carolina, while repealing its nullification of the 1832 tariff(after the new compromise tariff), then nullified the force bill.
To understand Calhoun's nullification, you simply have to look at the "Kentucky and Virginia resolutions". It is exactly the same thing. Secondly, the principle of nullification would further have been supported by Thomas Jefferson in his criticism of the 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison.
In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court declared itself the ultimate arbiter of all Constitutional questions. In Jefferson's and Madison's resolutions, they basically declared that it was the states that were the ultimate arbiter of all Constitutional questions. Which meant, the states could declare anything the federal government does unconstitutional and nullify those acts. And the only way for the federal government to rectify it, would be to pass an amendment to the constitution.
Jefferson felt like Marbury v. Madison gave the Supreme Court far too much power. Jefferson believed that if the federal government was to decide how much power the federal government would have, they would inevitably give themselves more power than was intended. Jefferson believed that the only way to prevent the balance of power from shifting entirely to the federal government, was to make the states the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional questions.
Thus, the entire premise of states' rights and nullification derives itself from those who reject the principles espoused in Marbury v. Madison.
That creates a problem as espoused in this article from all the way back in 1861. If a state can unilaterally nullify one law, then what stops it from nullifying them all? If a state nullifies all laws, then for all intents and purposes it has seceded.
So while Calhoun didn't advocate secession, he certainly gave it legitimacy. And the same can be said for Jefferson, who also never espoused secession but certainly gave it legitimacy.
I love Calhoun's 1850 speech. It really explains basically everything that was going on then, and even gives a lot of insight into how the government still works today.
As for James Madison. James Madison's views on nullification are completely illogical.
Look at it like this, James Madison in his writings says very clearly that he is against both secession and nullification. That he believes the federal government has supremacy in those areas that it has supremacy, and that the federal government should be the judge of the constitutionality of its acts.
Well, not really. James Madison penned the Virginia resolution. On the surface the Virginia resolution seems to be arguing that the states have a right and a duty to declare federal laws unconstitutional and therefore invalidate them within their borders. He talks in great detail how the federal government is misinterpreting the constitution to grant it powers that were never intended for it to have.
So what exactly does James Madison want the states to do about it? In his letters, it seems like he is calling for the states themselves to right the wrongs of the federal government. The problem is, the wrongs of the federal government in this case were put in place by the Congress. And Congress is constituted by our democratically elected representatives. Thus, if a majority of Congress was to vote in favor of a law, you can probably expect that a majority of the states also support that law.
Thus, if the Congress is misinterpreting the constitution to give the federal government more power than was intended, then wouldn't it be likely that a majority of states would also misinterpret the constitution as well?
Further, while James Madison seems to be advocating for the states to repeal the "unconstitutional laws". He doesn't really specify exactly how they are going to go about doing it. I mean, there would only be two ways short of nullification for the states to prevent abuses by the federal government. Either they simply elect new representatives, or they amend the constitution.
The first is illogical, because if the people's representatives support a law, it is most likely that the people also support the law(plus you have to wait till the next election cycle). And the second seems impractical, since if a majority(51%+) of the states already support the law(which is why it already exists), how are you going to suddenly convince 75%+ of the states to pass an amendment to invalidate a law that the majority already support?
Thus, based on James Madison's writings. He doesn't seem to be offering up any reasonable remedies to the unconstitutional abuses by the federal government.
His Virginia resolution seems to be the equivalent of trying to stop bullying by telling the bullies that bullying is bad, and asking them really nicely to stop. He was basically advocating unlimited democracy, even though he was absolutely repulsed by it.
Which comes to the real problem. James Madison recognized that the federal government couldn't be trusted to police itself. Because if the federal government was in charge of policing itself, it would inevitably abuse its power, and become effectively unlimited in size and authority.
But he also realized that a single state nullifying a federal law was also a bad idea, because it would inevitably cause the union to fall apart.
Being the only two options available, James Madison chose union over disunion. While hoping to keep the government in its place by calling upon the people themselves to demand from their representatives that they stay within the proper limits.
Which basically means, he was calling for democracy to prevent the abuses of democracy. And that sir is not only illogical, but hinges on insanity.
As is usual, this "debate" has grown exceedingly complicated and tedious. The fact remains , that this is America. You can fly whatever flag on your lawn you want to make whatever statement you see fit. Personally, I prefer to see First Nationals, Battle Flags, Gardens and Naval Jacks to the growing number of Mexican banners going up around here.
The statement that the latter makes, I find offensive. Far more so than one proclaiming a connection to the CSA. At least the Confederacy is part of AMERICAN history. This argument hasn't been solved in 150 years, and won't ever be. That war left a permanent and only half healed scar on our nation. But the fact remains we are all Americans. I rather like Charlie Daniels take on it.....We'll all stick together ..and you can take that to the bank...that's the Cowboys and the Hippies...and the Rebels and the Yanks. At the end of the day, that's truth.
Isn't the President Black? And there are a handful of black billionaires and several in the top 100 richest list in the U.S. If I'm not mistaken. I have never seen a Cherokee president or a Cherokee listed on those rich list. My grandmother is full Cherokee by the way and I'm very proud of my native blood (and my European blood too) so that's not an insult, just a realty to the crap your spitting about black people.
So? There are still far more white wealthy than there are Black wealthy. I'll even bet you that these Black billionaires spend little time worrying about the plight of the hood rats. I know the President doesn't. He'd rather associate with the Hollywood elite.
As far as one's blood is concerned, everyone has to have some kind of blood flowing in one's veins. I never used mine as either a hedge or a crutch. I would have been a success regards to the blood flowing in my veins. I refused to have an inferiority complex or defeatist attitude.
I know this is a controversial topic, but I am truly interested.
I live in NY, where I would probably get killed for flying the flag. I honestly think it is a beautiful flag, and I love the history behind it. The symbolism, that an abusive government that punishes certain states can be thrown out, and that states have the right to secede.
So do you fly a Battle Flag, either on your vehicle (could be a bumper sticker), your house (inside or outside).
I am more interested in people who actually fly the flag, why do you do it, and where do you live. I have seen a few in PA, OH, and MANY further South, as well as a few as far west as Arizona. (the only place in the upper South where I don't see them is Northern VA, DC, and Maryland).
Depends where. Upstate it would be gladly accepted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
