I think the flag issue is a case of In-Your-Face racist nostalgia. BUT after the ACLU sued Ohio to have the state motto "With God All Things Are Possible" declared unconstitutional I have learned to have sympathy with the citizens of states. It is their flag and their state. They decide. Not outside agitators, not pressure groups using the courts to make an end-run around the elected representatives.
Southern States, keep your flag flying..
- Thread starter Gus~
- Start date
- Status
How short sighted we can be.
I grew up like a lot of people misinformed
taught that the southern flag stood for racism
and slavery.
I attacked many of those wearing and selling the flag
as racists asking if they were christians and knew
that god did not pick and choose races and Christ
taught nothing about it while thats another subject
I realize altogether my BIG problem....
even when I pretended to be their friend as lilly white
as I look they did not agree 95% of those I talked to
said that the flag stood for states rights and
control by the Federal at that time basically called
the Union government.
The Union used slaves as a reason to make the south look
bad and try to get the English on their side but if they had the agriculture the south did I believe they also would have had them.
Want to talk about racism origins?
What port did the slaves come through north or south?
What flags flew on the boats that brought many of the
slaves to america?
Big hint it wasnt the confederate battle flag!
Anyone remember it being put into the constitution by the victorious north that slavery would be abolished?
Are you happy with the federal government today?
Where do most of the threats to our gunrights come from
on a federal or local level?
Are most of the liberals in the north or south?
Whom do liberals claim to represent?Minorities
But what do they attack our most basic of constitutional rights while telling their supporting minorities that we those supporting such rights are rich white racists next to the powerful gunlobby.
Are their tactics working?
Well lets see over 70% of blacks that voted voted for Gore
who doesnt give a flip as to whether they have rights or not or whehter the fact that G.control that he supports
has undeniably racist origins.
If the liberals elitists did it today on the federal level
and are getting away with it whos going to say they didnt years ago.
To the victor goes the spoils....
and most of the record books.
Or am I the only one that feels the federal government
continues to overstep its power and invade into states rights??
But oh Im sorry this issue is about race not rights
keep telling yourself that so youll be on the 'right'
or should I say 'left' track.
For the confederates consider checking out
http://www.scv.org
all others look for the racist conotations you say should be their.
I grew up like a lot of people misinformed
taught that the southern flag stood for racism
and slavery.
I attacked many of those wearing and selling the flag
as racists asking if they were christians and knew
that god did not pick and choose races and Christ
taught nothing about it while thats another subject
I realize altogether my BIG problem....
even when I pretended to be their friend as lilly white
as I look they did not agree 95% of those I talked to
said that the flag stood for states rights and
control by the Federal at that time basically called
the Union government.
The Union used slaves as a reason to make the south look
bad and try to get the English on their side but if they had the agriculture the south did I believe they also would have had them.
Want to talk about racism origins?
What port did the slaves come through north or south?
What flags flew on the boats that brought many of the
slaves to america?
Big hint it wasnt the confederate battle flag!
Anyone remember it being put into the constitution by the victorious north that slavery would be abolished?
Are you happy with the federal government today?
Where do most of the threats to our gunrights come from
on a federal or local level?
Are most of the liberals in the north or south?
Whom do liberals claim to represent?Minorities
But what do they attack our most basic of constitutional rights while telling their supporting minorities that we those supporting such rights are rich white racists next to the powerful gunlobby.
Are their tactics working?
Well lets see over 70% of blacks that voted voted for Gore
who doesnt give a flip as to whether they have rights or not or whehter the fact that G.control that he supports
has undeniably racist origins.
If the liberals elitists did it today on the federal level
and are getting away with it whos going to say they didnt years ago.
To the victor goes the spoils....
and most of the record books.
Or am I the only one that feels the federal government
continues to overstep its power and invade into states rights??
But oh Im sorry this issue is about race not rights
keep telling yourself that so youll be on the 'right'
or should I say 'left' track.
For the confederates consider checking out
http://www.scv.org
all others look for the racist conotations you say should be their.
I fly the stars and bars
Anyone with half a brain, could study up, and realize that the civil war was about states rights.
General Robert E. Lee said " All that the south has ever desired was that the union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
When someone asks me whay I fly an confederate flag, I explain to them that it is a STATES RIGHTS flag.
No racism is involved.
Lance, in Michigan
Anyone with half a brain, could study up, and realize that the civil war was about states rights.
General Robert E. Lee said " All that the south has ever desired was that the union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
When someone asks me whay I fly an confederate flag, I explain to them that it is a STATES RIGHTS flag.
No racism is involved.
Lance, in Michigan
EnochGale,
To me the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of secession and has been flown as such around the world. Since I support secession across the world, former USSR, Eastern bloc, as well as in the United States, I fly it today.
Please don't slander us with your preconceptions. For instance I saw neo-nazis marching with swastikas, the confederate battle flag and the Swedish flag. I can assure you that Sweden isn't a bastion of Nazism, and the neo-confederates I know wouldn't take kindly to Nazis. I personally know blacks who fly the Confederate battle flag.
I tend not to get too upset about this. The Stars and Stripes has flown over too many atrocities not yet admitted or resolved for its supporters to be in a position to critize. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Valdez
To me the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of secession and has been flown as such around the world. Since I support secession across the world, former USSR, Eastern bloc, as well as in the United States, I fly it today.
Please don't slander us with your preconceptions. For instance I saw neo-nazis marching with swastikas, the confederate battle flag and the Swedish flag. I can assure you that Sweden isn't a bastion of Nazism, and the neo-confederates I know wouldn't take kindly to Nazis. I personally know blacks who fly the Confederate battle flag.
I tend not to get too upset about this. The Stars and Stripes has flown over too many atrocities not yet admitted or resolved for its supporters to be in a position to critize. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Valdez
**Gus~ wrote:
To me this is a issue of States rights, they should be able to fly whatever they want, I don't care if they want to fly the skull&cross-bones. **
wow, your idiocy is frightening. why is everything that you hicks disagree with a violation of states' rights? do you understand what states' rights means? a STATE voting to remove the confederate flag is not a violation of states' rights! it is, in fact, the epitome of states' rights. jesus.
if the federal government were forcing them, then your claim of a violation of states' rights would at least be sane, if not correct. but to claim that the NAACP organizing a boycott or the citizens of a state voting to remove the cflag is a violation of states' rights is just... well, i guess it's the type of non-sensical argument the educated have come to expect from people like you.
hey, i don't like ashcroft!! he's a violation of states' rights, right?
sorry to be so harsh, i sometimes forget that you all are lacking in the intelligence dept. i'll try to be more compassionate from now on.
To me this is a issue of States rights, they should be able to fly whatever they want, I don't care if they want to fly the skull&cross-bones. **
wow, your idiocy is frightening. why is everything that you hicks disagree with a violation of states' rights? do you understand what states' rights means? a STATE voting to remove the confederate flag is not a violation of states' rights! it is, in fact, the epitome of states' rights. jesus.
if the federal government were forcing them, then your claim of a violation of states' rights would at least be sane, if not correct. but to claim that the NAACP organizing a boycott or the citizens of a state voting to remove the cflag is a violation of states' rights is just... well, i guess it's the type of non-sensical argument the educated have come to expect from people like you.
hey, i don't like ashcroft!! he's a violation of states' rights, right?
sorry to be so harsh, i sometimes forget that you all are lacking in the intelligence dept. i'll try to be more compassionate from now on.
I'm down here in Mississippi and yes, nogod, I am a uneducated redeck. Here is my problem. We will have to vote on the flag in April 2001 and the choices will be between the flag that has flown for over 100 years or the one that was designed by an appointed commision and is BUTT UGLY. I think that at least we should have had the choice of voting on a transparent flag that would have offended none of the citizens of our State. The War of Northern Aggression took place a long time ago but reconstruction is still going on.
There's a poll on the ( underhandedly changed ) Georgia flag here:
http://www.flagwire.com/cgi-bin/flagwire.pl?poll=georgia.poll&page=&channel=
http://www.flagwire.com/cgi-bin/flagwire.pl?poll=georgia.poll&page=&channel=
The Glocktalk discussion made several powerful points:
1. The Confederate part was added as a protest against equal rights for African Americans.
2. Thus the act was racist.
3. If you don't think that this then should be undone, you are:
a. A racist
b. An insensitive but ignorant person. Now that you know
the history, you will support the cahnge
4. The war was about slavery. The states rights issue was the right to have slaves. Not all Southerners had slaves but they were fooled by their power structure with racist rhetoric to fight to support slavery.
5. The history of the South after the war is a campaign to deprive African Americans of rights. Thus, the idea that the South was fighting for freedom is a myth. Why the Jim Crow laws and the need for the Civil Rights movements? Do you Confederate lovers remember the dogs and fire hoses?
So, find a confederate forum to whine about the loss of a society based on an atrocity and one that tried to continue it until forced by nonviolent actions and Federal troops to move into decency.
Drop the flag issue. Either you are a racist or can't realize that the symbolism is hurtful. If you want to hurt people, then you are a sinful person.
1. The Confederate part was added as a protest against equal rights for African Americans.
2. Thus the act was racist.
3. If you don't think that this then should be undone, you are:
a. A racist
b. An insensitive but ignorant person. Now that you know
the history, you will support the cahnge
4. The war was about slavery. The states rights issue was the right to have slaves. Not all Southerners had slaves but they were fooled by their power structure with racist rhetoric to fight to support slavery.
5. The history of the South after the war is a campaign to deprive African Americans of rights. Thus, the idea that the South was fighting for freedom is a myth. Why the Jim Crow laws and the need for the Civil Rights movements? Do you Confederate lovers remember the dogs and fire hoses?
So, find a confederate forum to whine about the loss of a society based on an atrocity and one that tried to continue it until forced by nonviolent actions and Federal troops to move into decency.
Drop the flag issue. Either you are a racist or can't realize that the symbolism is hurtful. If you want to hurt people, then you are a sinful person.
Christopher II
New member
Enoch, you're as far of base on this subject as you've ever been on anything.
I'm neither a Southerner nor one who has any particular opinion about the Confederate flag, but I can't stand to see history and basic logic mangled in the manner that you have. So...
1.) (From the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary) - Racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
I would submit that nobody who has posted to this thread shows any sign of being a racist. So cut the insults. It's offensive, and it's not helping your argument.
2.) As to whether the Civil War was about slavery as a state's rights issue, well, that's simply a canard. The Civil War was (like most wars) fought over economics. The northern producers wanted control over the fertile farmland in the south, so they could have an unending supply of cheap raw materials (cotton, grain, pulpwood, etc.) The farm/plantation owners in the south objected to this, so the southern states seceded from the Union. War followed.
Of course, none of this changes the fact that slavery is a particularly evil abnomation. But, if the Civil War was some kind of grand crusade to free the slaves, then why did Lincon offer to let the southern landowners keep their slaves if only they would rejoin the Union?
3.) The denial of civil rights to black citizens was by no means limited to the south. The northerners conveniently ignored their own all-white schools and neighborhoods, their own police brutality, and their own bigoted voting laws for years and years, AFTER the south was integrated. So your claim that southern culture was "based on an atrocity" is both ignorant and uninformed. Simple as that.
Well, I think I hit all the relevant points.
Later,
Chris
I'm neither a Southerner nor one who has any particular opinion about the Confederate flag, but I can't stand to see history and basic logic mangled in the manner that you have. So...
1.) (From the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary) - Racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.I would submit that nobody who has posted to this thread shows any sign of being a racist. So cut the insults. It's offensive, and it's not helping your argument.
2.) As to whether the Civil War was about slavery as a state's rights issue, well, that's simply a canard. The Civil War was (like most wars) fought over economics. The northern producers wanted control over the fertile farmland in the south, so they could have an unending supply of cheap raw materials (cotton, grain, pulpwood, etc.) The farm/plantation owners in the south objected to this, so the southern states seceded from the Union. War followed.
Of course, none of this changes the fact that slavery is a particularly evil abnomation. But, if the Civil War was some kind of grand crusade to free the slaves, then why did Lincon offer to let the southern landowners keep their slaves if only they would rejoin the Union?
3.) The denial of civil rights to black citizens was by no means limited to the south. The northerners conveniently ignored their own all-white schools and neighborhoods, their own police brutality, and their own bigoted voting laws for years and years, AFTER the south was integrated. So your claim that southern culture was "based on an atrocity" is both ignorant and uninformed. Simple as that.
Well, I think I hit all the relevant points.
Later,
Chris
Genesis of the civil war
Genesis of the Civil War
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
The historical event that looms largest in American public consciousness is the Civil War. One-hundred thirty-nine years after the first shot was fired, its genesis is still fiercely debated and its symbols heralded and protested. And no wonder: the event transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order. The cataclysmic event massacred a generation of young men, burned and looted the Southern states, set a precedent for executive dictatorship, and transformed the American military from a citizen-based defense corps into a global military power that can’t resist intervention.
And yet, if you listen to the media on the subject, you might think that the entire issue of the Civil War comes down to race and slavery. If you favor Confederate symbols, it means you are a white person unsympathetic to the plight of blacks in America. If you favor abolishing Confederate History Month and taking down the flag, you are an enlightened thinker willing to bury the past so we can look forward to a bright future under progressive leadership. The debate rarely goes beyond these simplistic slogans.
And yet this take on the event is wildly ahistorical. It takes Northern war propaganda at face value without considering that the South had solid legal, moral, and economic reasons for secession which had nothing to do with slavery. Even the name "Civil War" is misleading, since the war wasn’t about two sides fighting to run the central government as in the English or Roman civil wars. The South attempted a peaceful secession from federal control, an ambition no different from the original American plea for independence from Britain.
But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.
In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.
But why 1860? Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.
To gain an understanding of the Southern mission, look no further than the Confederate Constitution. It is a duplicate of the original Constitution, with several improvements. It guarantees free trade, restricts legislative power in crucial ways, abolishes public works, and attempts to rein in the executive. No, it didn’t abolish slavery but neither did the original Constitution (in fact, the original protected property rights in slaves).
Before the war, Lincoln himself had pledged to leave slavery intact, to enforce the fugitive slaves laws, and to support an amendment that would forever guarantee slavery where it then existed. Neither did he lift a finger to repeal the anti-Negro laws that besotted all Northern states, Illinois in particular. Recall that the underground railroad ended, not in New York or Boston-since dropping off blacks in those states would have been restricted-but in Canada! The Confederate Constitution did, however, make possible the gradual elimination of slavery, a process that would have been made easier had the North not so severely restricted the movements of former slaves.
Now, you won’t read this version of events in any conventional history text, particularly not those approved for use in public high schools. You are not likely to hear about it in the college classroom either, where the single issue of slavery overwhelms any critical thinking. Again and again we are told what Polybius called "an idle, unprofitable tale" instead of the truth, and we are expected to swallow it uncritically. So where can you go to discover that the conventional story is sheer nonsense?
The last ten years have brought us a flurry of great books that look beneath the surface. There is John Denson’s The Costs of War (1998), Jeffrey Rodgers Hummel’s Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men (1996), David Gordon’s Secession, State, and Liberty (1998), Marshall de Rosa’s The Confederate Constitution (1991), or, from a more popular standpoint, James and Walter Kennedy’s Was Jefferson Davis Right? (1998).
But if we were to recommend one work-based on originality, brevity, depth, and sheer rhetorical power-it would be Charles Adams’s time bomb of a book, When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000). In a mere 242 pages, he shows that almost everything we thought we knew about the war between the states is wrong.
Adams believes that both Northern and Southern leaders were lying when they invoked slavery as a reason for secession and for the war. Northerners were seeking a moral pretext for an aggressive war, while Southern leaders were seeking a threat more concrete than the Northern tariff to justify a drive to political independence. This was rhetoric designed for mass consumption . Adams amasses an amazing amount of evidence-including remarkable editorial cartoons and political speeches-to support his thesis that the war was really about government revenue.
Consider this little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 edition:
"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, 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. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.
"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 those 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?"
This is not an isolated case. British newspapers, whether favoring the North or South, said the same thing: the feds invaded the South to collect revenue. Indeed, when Karl Marx said the following, he was merely stating what everyone who followed events closely knew: "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."
Marx was only wrong on one point: the war was about principle at one level. It was about the principle of self-determination and the right not to be taxed to support an alien regime. Another way of putting this is that the war was about freedom, and the South was on the same side as the original American revolutionaries.
Interesting, isn’t it, that today, those who favor banning Confederate symbols and continue to demonize an entire people’s history also tend to be partisans of the federal government in all its present political struggles? Not much has changed in 139 years. Adams’s book goes a long way toward telling the truth about this event, for anyone who cares to look at the facts.
May 11, 2000
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. He also edits a daily news site, LewRockwell.com.-----
And what saddens me is how many of us are still lackies
of the liberal media and the federal government after all this time
we have learned so little.
Ruger.45
Genesis of the Civil War
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
The historical event that looms largest in American public consciousness is the Civil War. One-hundred thirty-nine years after the first shot was fired, its genesis is still fiercely debated and its symbols heralded and protested. And no wonder: the event transformed the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order. The cataclysmic event massacred a generation of young men, burned and looted the Southern states, set a precedent for executive dictatorship, and transformed the American military from a citizen-based defense corps into a global military power that can’t resist intervention.
And yet, if you listen to the media on the subject, you might think that the entire issue of the Civil War comes down to race and slavery. If you favor Confederate symbols, it means you are a white person unsympathetic to the plight of blacks in America. If you favor abolishing Confederate History Month and taking down the flag, you are an enlightened thinker willing to bury the past so we can look forward to a bright future under progressive leadership. The debate rarely goes beyond these simplistic slogans.
And yet this take on the event is wildly ahistorical. It takes Northern war propaganda at face value without considering that the South had solid legal, moral, and economic reasons for secession which had nothing to do with slavery. Even the name "Civil War" is misleading, since the war wasn’t about two sides fighting to run the central government as in the English or Roman civil wars. The South attempted a peaceful secession from federal control, an ambition no different from the original American plea for independence from Britain.
But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South’s trading relations with other parts of the world.
In effect, the South was being looted to pay for the North’s early version of industrial policy. The battle over the tariff began in 1828, with the "tariff of abomination." Thirty year later, with the South paying 87 percent of federal tariff revenue while having their livelihoods threatened by protectionist legislation, it became impossible for the two regions to be governed under the same regime. The South as a region was being reduced to a slave status, with the federal government as its master.
But why 1860? Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, but he did pledge to "collect the duties and imposts": he was the leading advocate of the tariff and public works policy, which is why his election prompted the South to secede. In pro-Lincoln newspapers, the phrase "free trade" was invoked as the equivalent of industrial suicide. Why fire on Ft. Sumter? It was a customs house, and when the North attempted to strengthen it, the South knew that its purpose was to collect taxes, as newspapers and politicians said at the time.
To gain an understanding of the Southern mission, look no further than the Confederate Constitution. It is a duplicate of the original Constitution, with several improvements. It guarantees free trade, restricts legislative power in crucial ways, abolishes public works, and attempts to rein in the executive. No, it didn’t abolish slavery but neither did the original Constitution (in fact, the original protected property rights in slaves).
Before the war, Lincoln himself had pledged to leave slavery intact, to enforce the fugitive slaves laws, and to support an amendment that would forever guarantee slavery where it then existed. Neither did he lift a finger to repeal the anti-Negro laws that besotted all Northern states, Illinois in particular. Recall that the underground railroad ended, not in New York or Boston-since dropping off blacks in those states would have been restricted-but in Canada! The Confederate Constitution did, however, make possible the gradual elimination of slavery, a process that would have been made easier had the North not so severely restricted the movements of former slaves.
Now, you won’t read this version of events in any conventional history text, particularly not those approved for use in public high schools. You are not likely to hear about it in the college classroom either, where the single issue of slavery overwhelms any critical thinking. Again and again we are told what Polybius called "an idle, unprofitable tale" instead of the truth, and we are expected to swallow it uncritically. So where can you go to discover that the conventional story is sheer nonsense?
The last ten years have brought us a flurry of great books that look beneath the surface. There is John Denson’s The Costs of War (1998), Jeffrey Rodgers Hummel’s Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men (1996), David Gordon’s Secession, State, and Liberty (1998), Marshall de Rosa’s The Confederate Constitution (1991), or, from a more popular standpoint, James and Walter Kennedy’s Was Jefferson Davis Right? (1998).
But if we were to recommend one work-based on originality, brevity, depth, and sheer rhetorical power-it would be Charles Adams’s time bomb of a book, When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000). In a mere 242 pages, he shows that almost everything we thought we knew about the war between the states is wrong.
Adams believes that both Northern and Southern leaders were lying when they invoked slavery as a reason for secession and for the war. Northerners were seeking a moral pretext for an aggressive war, while Southern leaders were seeking a threat more concrete than the Northern tariff to justify a drive to political independence. This was rhetoric designed for mass consumption . Adams amasses an amazing amount of evidence-including remarkable editorial cartoons and political speeches-to support his thesis that the war was really about government revenue.
Consider this little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 edition:
"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, 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. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.
"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 those 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?"
This is not an isolated case. British newspapers, whether favoring the North or South, said the same thing: the feds invaded the South to collect revenue. Indeed, when Karl Marx said the following, he was merely stating what everyone who followed events closely knew: "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."
Marx was only wrong on one point: the war was about principle at one level. It was about the principle of self-determination and the right not to be taxed to support an alien regime. Another way of putting this is that the war was about freedom, and the South was on the same side as the original American revolutionaries.
Interesting, isn’t it, that today, those who favor banning Confederate symbols and continue to demonize an entire people’s history also tend to be partisans of the federal government in all its present political struggles? Not much has changed in 139 years. Adams’s book goes a long way toward telling the truth about this event, for anyone who cares to look at the facts.
May 11, 2000
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. He also edits a daily news site, LewRockwell.com.-----
And what saddens me is how many of us are still lackies
of the liberal media and the federal government after all this time
we have learned so little.
Ruger.45
oberkommando
New member
Maybe the gadsden flag would be more appropriate?
Scott Conklin
New member
Ah yes, Gus...
The white flag. How appropriate. Abject surrender is exactly what they have in mind for all of us outside their narrow and intolerant dogma, isn't it. It isn't about a flag, it's about control...sound familar?
BTW, I have seen more Confederate flags here in Indiana than ever before since this crap started. People don't like being told what to do, nor are they too dumb to realize that just because it is happening somewhere else now doesn't mean it won't happen here soon enough.
The white flag. How appropriate. Abject surrender is exactly what they have in mind for all of us outside their narrow and intolerant dogma, isn't it. It isn't about a flag, it's about control...sound familar?
BTW, I have seen more Confederate flags here in Indiana than ever before since this crap started. People don't like being told what to do, nor are they too dumb to realize that just because it is happening somewhere else now doesn't mean it won't happen here soon enough.
Scott Conklin
New member
Enoch
Poor debating skills. You have basically said that if anyone disagrees with your opinion(which is based on a long and thorough propaganda war via the victor)then they are idiots. You have not supported or defended your point but rather attempted to exempt yourself from having to do so by labeling and name calling. Very very poor debate skills.
Now, the facts are most southerners did not own slaves. They did not care one way or the other. They were not "brainwashed" by racist diatribes either. Apparently you have forgottent hat communication methods were somewhat less developed then than now. Most knew only that the Union wanted to prevent them from being their own nation and in the process destroy whatever they could.
The War for Southern Independence was just that. All the Revisionist history in the world, and those who blindly follow such because they are too lazy to do their own research or because such dovetails neatly with their race baiting personal agenda, can not change the reality. Nor stop the rest of us from actually reading what actually happened.
Poor debating skills. You have basically said that if anyone disagrees with your opinion(which is based on a long and thorough propaganda war via the victor)then they are idiots. You have not supported or defended your point but rather attempted to exempt yourself from having to do so by labeling and name calling. Very very poor debate skills.
Now, the facts are most southerners did not own slaves. They did not care one way or the other. They were not "brainwashed" by racist diatribes either. Apparently you have forgottent hat communication methods were somewhat less developed then than now. Most knew only that the Union wanted to prevent them from being their own nation and in the process destroy whatever they could.
The War for Southern Independence was just that. All the Revisionist history in the world, and those who blindly follow such because they are too lazy to do their own research or because such dovetails neatly with their race baiting personal agenda, can not change the reality. Nor stop the rest of us from actually reading what actually happened.
Scott Conklin
New member
Christopher II...
Not only ask the question why did Lincoln offer to allow them(Southern plantation owners) to keep their slaves BUT ask why the Emanicipation Proclamation very specifically did NOT affect Northern owned slaves.
If it was a war about slavery then that was a damned big slip up there, now wasn't it?
Not only ask the question why did Lincoln offer to allow them(Southern plantation owners) to keep their slaves BUT ask why the Emanicipation Proclamation very specifically did NOT affect Northern owned slaves.
If it was a war about slavery then that was a damned big slip up there, now wasn't it?
Cap n ball
New member
I've flown the Bonnie Blue flag for years with no complaints from the race-baiters. When I've put the Missouri state battle flag out on my porch, (it's blue with a red border and a latin or Christian cross in the corner) I can expect to get visited by door to door religous solicitors who see it and figure I'm a religous person untill they come up and find me cleaning a revolver. The whole issue is one of style over substance. The ignorant who see the battle flag as something to hate or related to hate are hating the wrong flag. My great grandfather and his four brothers fought on both sides. Three with Missouri Partisan outfits and two with Union regiments. The three that fought for the Missouri/Southern cause did so to defend their homes and families from the northern aggressor. They didn't own slaves anymore and hadn't since migrating from Kentucky. The other two were living in Iowa and didn't have much choice in the matter. The entire subject was never considered fit for discussion at the dinner table and I was always told that nobody 'won' the Civil War and that it would have happened even if the planters had picked their own cotton themselves. Lincoln made the issue of slavery as the justification for the war when the outcome of Gettysburg could have gone as a victory for the south and the draft riots in New York were aflame. This had two immediate results for the Union cause. It justified the invasion of the South as an evil empire and it also made many Southern men feel as though they were fighting for the rich planters. Nevermind the thousands of black people who willingly fought for the Confederacy or the fact that most of the Union officers themselves owned slaves who were not freed untill well after Appomatox. The truth was different just like which flag means what is today. Enoch and 'Nogod' and the others of like mind...you are wrong. I respect your right to be wrong and I shan't call you names or fan the flames of ignorance but you are wrong. Just as wrong as those who ignorantly use the symbols of the South to encite racial bias and ill-feelings.
I'm proud to be an 'unreconstructed' Missourian.
[Edited by Cap n ball on 01-29-2001 at 12:33 PM]
I'm proud to be an 'unreconstructed' Missourian.
[Edited by Cap n ball on 01-29-2001 at 12:33 PM]
While we're "forming a circular firing squad" here, the Georgia Senate is moving fast to XXXX us!
Look at my post, "Georgia Flag- etc." they are fast-tracking a vote tommorrow before us "bloody peasants" can organize opposition to it.
E-mail, Fax, & phone today!
Links are given, enough to inform you about the subject, and a contact link is provided so you can get thru today.
Look at my post, "Georgia Flag- etc." they are fast-tracking a vote tommorrow before us "bloody peasants" can organize opposition to it.
E-mail, Fax, & phone today!
Links are given, enough to inform you about the subject, and a contact link is provided so you can get thru today.
- Status