The confederate flag

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Neat story Bear Arms! I wish I could have done that in school. I'm sure your correct in saying that it isn't done anymore. It's a lot more than how Lincoln didn't set out to free the slaves, but I think you got the point.

Bart, we do sometimes call it that, or the War Between The States. The teachers do make a difference, but it is mostly the liberal curriculum that is chosen to poison the minds of kids against anything Southern. I was born just a few miles from where Jerry Clower was born and lived. J.D. Sumner and the Stamps quartet are a singing legend.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South

IceSpeed

Guru
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
250
Location
Maine
One thing I learned while studying "the Civil War"/"War Between the States" was the Lincoln was not even on the ballot in many southern states elections. Also, I learned that there was anti-slavery movements in the north, but not because of anti-racism. Most powerful northerners felt that the age old institution of slavery should be abandoned for rule by companies. The industrialized North was putting pressure on the agricultural South and slavery was a system where the farmers had power(something the business owners did not want).
Of course there were people that were against racism in the North, but just as many per person as there were in the South. In the North, the old WASP families and the suffreggettes(excuse my spelling) were morally opposed to slavery and immigration. In the South, Robert E. Lee comes to mind.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Your right Ice Speed, what about the White House Slaves during the war? Lee freed his slaves before most northerner slave owners did. There was slavery in DC Maryland, Delaware and out west when the war came. To me this is not the real issue though.

Slavery was not the main cause of the war. To deny this would be to deny the truth. Slavery was a cause, but not the cause. The causes of the war were myriad, from a long held belief about the nature of the union, that it was entered into voluntarily and could be left the same way, that tariffs and taxes were levied unfairly at the south by northern traders who profitted the most from them, to defense of home. They left the union for the same reasons that the colonies left Great Britain.

I think the following quote from a book on the war sums it up best. This occurred on a southern battlefield. When the Yankee asked the Reb why he was fighting, the Reb said plainly, cause ya'll are down here. I believe that was the main reason the war was fought by most average southerners. It's not like they all had slaves, less than 25% to be correct. Never mind the fact that a good number of blacks fought with the south on their own free will, and what about the 5 civilized tribes of Indians, why did they ally themselves with the Confederacy? Maybe it had something to do with forced removal by the US government from their homes in the South, not to mention the near genocide by US soldiers on many Indian tribes and the Trail of Tears.

Like I said, there was slavery in the north when war came and after it ended. The emancipation proclamation was a joke and did not free a single slave. Lincoln admitted it was a political ploy. The idea that pure as the wind driven snow Yankees came a running to free their southern black brothers in bondage in the south is an outright lie. The sad truth is that this myth is being propogated by some teachers and by most of the media and textbooks. The reality of the war and its causes have been forgotten due to the disease of revisionist history and political correctness. Slavery ended in the north with the passing of the 13'th Amendment on December 6, 1865. It had been dead in the south for months.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
It was good to see that this week there were some people who have no fear of defending the Confederate flag in Attala County, Mississippi. It's always good to see people stand for the truth, no matter the subject or issue.
 

White_Savage

Mentor
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,217
Location
Texas
Let me see, theres he American flag. Indians weren't enslaved under it, they were murdered and driven off. Yet one of the things we have NOT given the remaining Indians is the right to drive the U.S. flag from the public forum.

Or the Union Jack...I can assure you the Irish side of my family didn't like living under that one, yet no one is considered a "hater" for having one on their jacket.
 

White_Savage

Mentor
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,217
Location
Texas
A little truth about the Civil War:

The American Lenin
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.com

It's harder and harder these days to tell a liberal from a conservative -- given the former category's increasingly blatant hostility toward the First Amendment, and the latter's prissy new disdain for the Second Amendment -- but it's still easy to tell a liberal from a libertarian.

Just ask about either Amendment.

If what you get back is a spirited defense of the ideas of this country's Founding Fathers, what you've got is a libertarian. By shameful default, libertarians have become America's last and only reliable stewards of the Bill of Rights.

But if -- and this usually seems a bit more difficult to most people -- you'd like to know whether an individual is a libertarian or a conservative, ask about Abraham Lincoln.

Suppose a woman -- with plenty of personal faults herself, let that be stipulated -- desired to leave her husband: partly because he made a regular practice, in order to go out and get drunk, of stealing money she had earned herself by raising chickens or taking in laundry; and partly because he'd already demonstrated a proclivity for domestic violence the first time she'd complained about his stealing.

Now, when he stood in the doorway and beat her to a bloody pulp to keep her home, would we memorialize him as a hero? Or would we treat him like a dangerous lunatic who should be locked up, if for no other reason, then for trying to maintain the appearance of a relationship where there wasn't a relationship any more? What value, we would ask, does he find in continuing to possess her in an involuntary association, when her heart and mind had left him long ago?

History tells us that Lincoln was a politically ambitious lawyer who eagerly prostituted himself to northern industrialists who were unwilling to pay world prices for their raw materials and who, rather than practice real capitalism, enlisted brute government force -- "sell to us at our price or pay a fine that'll put you out of business" -- for dealing with uncooperative southern suppliers. That's what a tariff's all about. In support of this "noble principle", when southerners demonstrated what amounted to no more than token resistance, Lincoln permitted an internal war to begin that butchered more Americans than all of this country's foreign wars -- before or afterward -- rolled into one.

Lincoln saw the introduction of total war on the American continent -- indiscriminate mass slaughter and destruction without regard to age, gender, or combat status of the victims -- and oversaw the systematic shelling and burning of entire cities for strategic and tactical purposes. For the same purposes, Lincoln declared, rather late in the war, that black slaves were now free in the south -- where he had no effective jurisdiction -- while declaring at the same time, somewhat more quietly but for the record nonetheless, that if maintaining slavery could have won his war for him, he'd have done that, instead.

The fact is, Lincoln didn't abolish slavery at all, he nationalized it, imposing income taxation and military conscription upon what had been a free country before he took over -- income taxation and military conscription to which newly "freed" blacks soon found themselves subjected right alongside newly-enslaved whites. If the civil war was truly fought against slavery -- a dubious, "politically correct" assertion with no historical evidence to back it up -- then clearly, slavery won.

Lincoln brought secret police to America, along with the traditional midnight "knock on the door", illegally suspending the Bill of Rights and, like the Latin America dictators he anticipated, "disappearing" thousands in the north whose only crime was that they disagreed with him. To finance his crimes against humanity, Lincoln allowed the printing of worthless paper money in unprecedented volumes, ultimately plunging America into a long, grim depression -- in the south, it lasted half a century -- he didn't have to live through, himself.

In the end, Lincoln didn't unite this country -- that can't be done by force -- he divided it along lines of an unspeakably ugly hatred and resentment that continue to exist almost a century and a half after they were drawn. If Lincoln could have been put on trial in Nuremburg for war crimes, he'd have received the same sentence as the highest-ranking Nazis.

If libertarians ran things, they'd melt all the Lincoln pennies, shred all the Lincoln fives, take a wrecking ball to the Lincoln Memorial, and consider erecting monuments to John Wilkes Booth. Libertarians know Lincoln as the worst President America has ever had to suffer, with Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson running a distant second, third, and fourth.

Conservatives, on the other hand, adore Lincoln, publicly admire his methods, and revere him as the best President America ever had. One wonders: is this because they'd like to do, all over again, all of the things Lincoln did to the American people? Judging from their taste for executions as a substitute for individual self-defense, their penchant for putting people behind bars -- more than any other country in the world, per capita, no matter how poorly it works to reduce crime -- and the bitter distaste they display for Constitutional "technicalities" like the exclusionary rule, which are all that keep America from becoming the world's largest banana republic, one is well-justified in wondering.

The troubling truth is that, more than anybody else's, Abraham Lincoln's career resembles and foreshadows that of V.I. Lenin, who, with somewhat better technology at his disposal, slaughtered millions of innocents -- rather than mere hundreds of thousands -- to enforce an impossibly stupid idea which, in the end, like forced association, was proven by history to be a resounding failure. Abraham Lincoln was America's Lenin, and when America has finally absorbed that painful but illuminating truth, it will finally have begun to recover from the War between the States.



------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of 19 books including The Probability Broach, The Crystal Empire, Henry Martyn, The Lando Calrissian Adventures, Pallas, and (forthcoming) Bretta Martyn. An NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus, he has been active in the Libertarian movement for 34 years and is its most prolific and widely-published living novelist.

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
There is much truth in what Smith says but I think Lincoln was more inept then evil. I think his actions concerning Fort Sumptner were appropriate, but his calling up of troops was a disasterous move politically. Lincoln was "controlled" by a large cabel of power and money hungry politicos. He was really just the front man for them although he asserted himself in the end for the better I think.

Regarding southern seccession, it is often portrayed that nearly all southerners wanted to leave the union. That is not true and everybody knows it. The groups that met to decide to succeed from the union were made up of upperclass slave owners and did not accurately represent the feelings of most southerners.

If you agree that that is true then it is not a war of northern aggression but a federal action to restore constitutional rights to those many people who had them stripped from them. Libertarians are quick to condemn any US government action that is anti-freedom but not so quick to condemn other anti-US governments actions.

For instance no matter how bad the federal govt was or became it was never as bad as the Confederate govt. The Conf govt was a "War Socialist" govt that nationalized all property and all people, and supported slavery to boot. It was as bad as any Lenin style govt and deserved to be destroyed. Imagine if the south had won with a govt that insisted on complete control of all of the means of production! There would have been endless wars on the north american continent.

As bad as Lincoln and the federal govt were, in the end the result was probably the best one, any other outcome carries the possibilities of being much worse.
 

White_Savage

Mentor
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,217
Location
Texas
"For instance no matter how bad the federal govt was or became it was never as bad as the Confederate govt. The Conf govt was a "War Socialist" govt that nationalized all property and all people, and supported slavery to boot. It was as bad as any Lenin style govt and deserved to be destroyed. Imagine if the south had won with a govt that insisted on complete control of all of the means of production! There would have been endless wars on the north american continent."

You apparently haven't looked at your Federal Government lately...it's as bad as anything this side of Stalin.

Your comparison of the South to Lenin is absurd in it's extremeness. I am not so much the Libertarian that I do not believe that certain measures (like the draft, confiscation of supplies for the troops, etc) cannot be instituted when you are defending your country from destruction against impossible odds. It was not the South that invaded the North, the onus was upon Lincoln to keep the peace.

Also, have you ever read the letters and papers of men, both great and small, who fought in the Civil War? Offhand, I can't remember a single one who said they were fighting for slavery. Simple men, like my ancestors were, did not fight so bravely simply because a bunch of rich planters told them to do so. They fought, I imagine, because they knew the government that can break one of it's bonds can break all bonds...and since that time, the government certainly has.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
What the federal government has become is due to the actions of people that came long after the civil war. Nearly all of the abuses Smith cited of the Lincoln government were temporary war measures of the type you agree was OK for the south. And note everything the north abused the south did also.

Well Smith compared Lincoln's govt to Lenin, I guess a totally socialist govt that also supported slavery can also be smeared with such an insult.

I think the original reason for conflict was the South's seizure of Federal property. A libertarian should be supportive of the right of a property owner to attempt to reclaim his property from thieves.

I think you are referring to the south when you refer to them not fighting for slavery. I think you are wrong. I have read plenty of letters that went along the lines of "the north can have our negroes when they pry them from our cold dead hands".

The average Southerner fought for the same reason most men fight. They were conscripted. The other option was jail or worse. I sympathise with them fighting, if someone came to my neighborhood to rape and pillage i'd join the local outfit to oppose it no matter what they stood for.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Only one of my 13 known Confederate ancestors had any slaves, so I doubt they would require any prying from their cold, dead, hands. The reason the war started was secession, not the seizure of Ft. Sumter. Ft. Sumter gave Lincoln an excuse to try to force the southern states back in. Secession was a legal, valid option until that time. The north winning the war supposedly settled it, but it doesn't change how it was viewed until that time.

Anyone who claims that the CSA government was any worse than the US government at that time is grasping for straws and grossly mistaken. Explain the existance of West Virginia, the change of the US on slavery, and reasons for the CSA's allies, the Indians, who had suffered for decades under the US. By the way, I agree with the comments about Lincoln, but I am a conservative, not a libertarian.

They can take my guns away from me, when they pry them from my cold dead hands.
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
I imagine your ancestors fought because they were resisiting an invading force which is understandable. The other reason might be that the CSA required service in the military and forcibly conscripted anyone it came across.

The attack on Fort Sumpter started the military conflict as to the legality of succession I agree, how could it be otherwise? One should be able to leave a country at anytime and people are not bound by the decisions of their ancestors.

The Confederate govt became worse then the Federal govt probably due to the war but might have anyway. The CSA were completely socialist. The government ran all business, and controlled all farm production. There was very little private ownership unlike in the north where nearly all business was privately owned. The CSA suspended many rights of the people and demanded service to the govt of all able bodied males. And of course they allowed slavery.

I admire much about the CSA, especially the military. I'm a Civil War buff and think that the southern army leaders were heroic. I think seccession was proper and the federal action wrong. I also think that the Confederate States of America had much bad in them and it should not be glossed over.
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Fair enough Jaxvid, as long as we remember that the US had slavery until the end of 1865.Edited by: Colonel_Reb
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South

Bear-Arms

Mentor
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
United States

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Thanks Bear Arms! They wrote all sorts of articles about me over the last few years. Thats why I'm on Caste Football now. I can't be on the sidelines at Ole Miss anymore. I have found a fairly comfortable new home here though.
smiley2.gif
 

White_Savage

Mentor
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
1,217
Location
Texas
Let me get this straight...

Some negros were slaves under the Condederate flag for what, four years?

The American Indian was displaced and/or murdered under the United States flag for over 100 years.

The Irish suffered oppressions under one flag or the other of Britain for 700 years.

Yet somehow I don't think Indians or Irishmen would be successful at driving either of these flags from the public view, not that they'd try something so absurd and assine.

So,when ARE we going quit rewarding loud jack-assery in America?
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Good question, White_Savage.
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
My retort to the oft heard refrain that "this country was built on the backs of slave labor!!" is, "well, if slave labor is so great, why did the South lose the War?"
smiley36.gif
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
Good one White_shogun, but to answer the question; Because the South didn't profit from slavery like the north did. The north was the center of financing for the slaveholders, and they took the money made from slavery and built up the northern economy. Hence, they had a better war machine.
 
Top