Why the Confederate flag still flies in South Carolina

I get my history from what historically correct history is written from.

 

time to put away this stupid flag

View attachment 35910

 

Let me guess. You believe that they did not care about slavery and were simply trying to preserve state's rights. Neither of those statements is rooted in reality.

 

the Vice President of the Confederacy said it best:

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition"

 

Yes, they were the enemy of the US, if but temporarily. A very small minority (and btw they are nowhere near as much a threat to the US today as Islamic supremacy is), like Roof, still are the enemy. If the Confederates won, it would have likely destroyed the US. No way would we have been able to intervene in WWI or WWII like we did. Almost certainly some other country would have developed nukes sooner. We would be dominated by another superpower(s) right now. I'd say the Confederates were definitely enemies of the US, based solely on their potential impact to US national security. They were right up there with the USSR in the greatest threats this country has ever faced.

 

Why would anyone who has read the Confederate Constitution believe any such plan would ever amount to anything?

Presumably you don't mean it was obvious to all those enlistees. Regardless, I'd be surprised if taking an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy wasn't part of the enlistment process, and it was morally incumbent on those enlistees to become aware of what exactly they were volunteering to defend.

The comparison only makes sense if the Confederates intended ultimately to destroy or enslave the US, and I'm aware of no evidence of such designs.

 

And you know this just how?

 

Haven't checked out this entire thread yet, but was this posted already?



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-92-clinton-gore-confederate-campaign-button/

 

2015-1992=23 years

 

It's obvious. The world is a competition for power among states. A fragmented US would be a weaker US. The founders warned of this. I do believe just about every single European nation, although not intervening, spewed rhetoric against the North. Only Russia supported the North (because they were afraid of Europe themselves). When Great Power defense ministers of the time were speaking on behalf of the South, that is probably evidence that the secession wasn't a good thing for the US or potential Confederacy.

 

Then how do you know what the rest? Would WW1 have happened? What about WW2? You might as well be talking about Game of Thrones.

 

I know what world leaders of the time were saying. I know what our founders said. A fragmented US would be a weaker US. It's common sense. If it lost, the North doesn't move west as quickly. Quantitatively, it can't be denied that 2 or more separate nations on the continent would not have had the productive capacity that was brought to bear just 50 years later in WWI. The successful secessions would have set a precedent that may have continued in both the North and South. Perhaps Texas would have seceded from the confederacy a few decades later. The founder's fears of another European continent with many competing states would have come closer to reality. We wouldn't have become a superpower. The dollar wouldn't be the world currency. Some other country would be dictating the rules of war and international commerce to us in our collection of enclaves on the North American continent.

Just face it, all of us, on both the North and South American continents are lucky the North won.

 

How many diaries, personal journals and letters have you read that were kept by Americans who lived between 1800 to 1865 ? I would say I have read a couple hundred. I would say from diaries and personal journals that were kept between 1832 and 1861 the majority would mention the Nat Turner Rebellion.

Most slave owners opposed slavery, they wanted to set their slave free but were forbidden by state laws that were written after the Nat Turner Rebellion of 1831. The slave trade in America ended in 1807. Most slave owners by the 1830's inherited their slaves from their parents or grand parents.

Robert E. Lee inherited his slaves through marriage, he got stuck with his wife's fathers slaves and he couldn't set them free until his father in law estate debts were paid off and then you had Virginia's laws that were written after the Nat Turner Rebellion that no slave could be set free with in the state of Virginia.

Now you can always look back in hindsight and say "what if" ? That's always fun to do.
What if there was never a Nat Turner Rebellion ? Some historians say from reading what history is written from, slavery probably would have ended before the 1860's.

Another interesting fact that has surfaced. The abolitionist movement in America. Look at John Brown own words, his agenda was to start a civil war. But who financed the abolitionist movement in America ? Follow the money, it goes back to London, England. Interesting the same people who were financing the abolitionist in America were the same British cotton merchants who were encouraging the cotton states to secede from the Union.

Who was the most famous commerce raider in history ? Capt. Semmes, CSA Navy who was the captain of the CSS Alabama.

Where was that Confederate warship built ? Liverpool, England.

Now all of the Confederate naval officers and Confederate Marines on the CSS Alabama were Americans but not the rest of the enlisted crew, they were mostly British subjects.

How did the rest of the world looked at the American Civil War ? They viewed it as northern aggression against the South. The Union army invaded the South.
Until Confederate President Jefferson Davis made a fatal blunder, he ordered Robert E. Lee to push into Pennsylvania and Europe then looked upon the South being the aggressor. That was a major mistake and Robert E. Lee protested but being a West Point yes man, he followed orders. The rest is history.

BTW:
What most of the white Southerners and Northerners alike feared with the end of slavery would become reality.

But no one ever predicted a black President who would use the "N" word in public.

 

How is Nat Turner relevant?

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

And were taught by said parents and grandparents that the negro was an inferior being.

James Buchanan bought several slaves so that he could set them free. If slaveowners genuinely opposed slavery, it would have been easy to arrange something like that.

That was never going to happen.

Your point is?

Europe didn't care about the confederacy. They cared about cotton and were willing to support whatever side was going to keep the cotton supply flowing.

Nobody ever predicted that there would be a black president.

 

An example of the wording of the Confederate oath of enlistment, though it varied from place to place.

"I, ........., do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance
to the Confederate States of America and that I will serve them honestly and
faithfully against all their enemies or oppressors whomsoever; and that I
will observe and obey the orders of the President of the Confederate States
and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and
Articles of War."

A version of the Federal oath from this era, in elaborate form.

"I, .........., of .......... County, State of .........., do hereby
solemnly swear that I will bear true allegiance to the United States and
support and sustain the Constitution and laws thereof; that I will maintain
the national sovereignty paramount to that of all state, county or
Confederate powers; that I will discourage and forever oppose secession,
rebellion and the disintegration of the Federal union; that I disclaim and
denounce all faith and fellowship with the so-called Confederate armies, and
pledge my honor, my property and my life to the sacred performance of this,
my solemn oath of allegiance to the Government of the United States of
America."

Soldiers of this era were left with a clear cut choice...fight for or against the U.S. government.

Either support and defend the U.S. Constitution, or declare it dead. You cannot serve two masters.

I would apply the exact same scenario today, if you oppose the Government of the United States, you are effectively declaring the U.S. Constitution
dead. You certainly have no place in our Armed Forces as such, with this prevailing sentiment which requires an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Any symbolism of the flag of the Confederacy within the context of our Armed Forces, outside of the historical, should be banned. Now they won't do that of course, because Southerners represent a large demographic of our services.

They tolerate this to a degree... Frankly, I'm disappointed they don't take a harder stance on it because beyond the symbolism, the Confederate stars and bars essentially declares war upon the U.S. Constitution as null and void. This is contrary to the most fundamental tenet of military service...an oath taken by both the enlisted and commissioned officer to support and defend the very document the CSA figuratively burned in effigy.

I have no idea why the argument is reduced to "Political Correctness." In other words those who find the CSA battleflag as offensive just need to lighten up and loosen their shorts...they are being "too PC."

That's a load of hooey...never mind the institution of slavery...put that on the shelf as a separate discussion. The CSA effectively rendered the U.S. Constitution null and void. You are serving two masters by in anyway honoring that stars and bars and simultaneously holding any reverence towards the stars and stripes.

Pick a master.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3

Slavery was a dying institution only until 1810. The cotton gin revived it then and by 1830 it was a very going concern. Most slaves even by 1808, when the trade was forbidden, were born in the US. Slave Breeding was the main industry in Maryland and Virginia and the major reason they have such large black populations to this day. Slavery enabled a white man to rape a woman and get the equivalent of BMW car for doing it, why wouldn't it be popular?

Lincoln emancipated the slaves after Antietam showed the North was winning the war and he did it mainly to show the world that the war was to liberate the slaves, which would guarantee that neither Britain nor France would enter it. Most Brits saw it as being for that reason even before this. There was very little support in Parliament for British intervention at any time, since they easily substituted Egyptian cotton which was both cheaper, better, and did not come with all the slavery baggage, though Southern propagandist made much of the small support they got, and have ever since

 

I don't believe for a second that that is what this flag issue gets reduced to.

It's reduced to the fact that in 1961/1962 those in SC were strongly in favor of segregation and hated the freedom and equality that were being mandated after so little progress had been made over the previous nearly 100 years since the war.

The Confederate battle flag was then co-opted by those in favor of segregation, who flew it at the SC state house and other various locations between there and Texas, starting in those years as their symbol of protest against the incredible injustice of being required to allow blacks full citizenship and equality as humans.

That symbol has been tolerated for over 50 years now, and it's about time that ended.



If people of the south thought the Confederate battle flag stood for fine upright citizens doing something important, they should never have allowed that flag to be co-opted for the purposes of discrimination and hatred.

Maybe there can be a movement to rehabilitate that flag, so that in another 50 years it can go back to representing those who fought for the South in their valiant effort to rip our republic in two. But, that will take work.

 

yes obviously were all lucky that the confederacy won, they were worse than the nazis, but making presumptions about how world history wouldve played out had a major change like the south winning the war is kinda pointless, I never liked calling confederacy or civil war a secessionist movement because they never indicated they wanted to stop with just the south, they attacked as far north as vermont.

Also nobody thinks there was any real way the south could've won, they had zero support from the british or the french i think a few wealthy racist brits invested in them but they mostly did that because the british royalty beleived america would collapse into civil war and they could retake the continent, the idea of america "running itself" was laughable in europe, so they didn't really support the confederacy they just supported America failing as a country

the british and french had long outlawed slavery and already were buying their cotton elsewhere when the war started, you could argue that even just from economic standard leaving out geopolitical militaristic and diplomatic reasons they still wouldn't benefit from the doing business with the south as they needed grain from the north far more than cotton from the south

Lincoln declared any country that supported the CSA would be declaring war against the USA and not a single european government did, there was almost no possible way for the south to win the civil war almost all historians agree that the "war" was fought at half steam, meaning the North didn't use half of its strength.

 

As stated....Good To Know!

 

He was very relevant from the 1830's to 1861, read the newspapers that were published back then and what historically correct history use to be written from.

When was the last time you read the Democrat National Committee platform ? Democrats believe that black Americans can't compete in society and need special privileges, protections and free stuff to compete. Sounds pretty raciest to me.

I did over thirty yeas ago. But I never thought that the first black President would be America's first affirmative action President.

 

Most European nations outlawed the international slave trade in the early 1800's, when Great Britain outlawed the slave trade, the United States followed with in less than a year later. The U.S, Navy actually sent a squadron to patrol off the West African coast and bombarded slave forts and even put U.S. Marine landing parties ashore to kill slave traders. But the cultural-Marxist revisionist never mention it do they ?

When Great Britain ended slavery I believe it was in 1833, America would have followed if there wasn't the Nat Turner Rebellion. There are thousands of diaries and personal journals that mention it.

Great Britain gets a complete pass when they had slavery.

When Mexico gained their independence from Spain, they outlawed slavery but slavery was still being practiced by three states with in Mexico when the American Civil War began. But Mexico gets a complete pass don't they ?

Native American tribes were involved in the slave trade and had slaves going into the late 1890's but the cultural-Marxist give them a complete pass don't they ?

 

no one is trying to stop people form owning the flag.... just the government from flying the flag

 

Pass from whom? BTW, all those countries outlawed slavery without the need for a war, a detail you seem to conveniently forget.

 

So because the comment I cited was made over 20 years ago...he's not a racist bigot now? Have you ever watched the Al Sharpton Show on MSNBC...or are you just trollin me?

 

Are you trying to tell us that the buying and selling of slaves in this country, almost 100% concentrated in Southern states, was gone by the early 1800's when the rest of the then civilized world dumped it? that we didn't fight the bloodiest war in our history with over 620,000 military deaths because those states wanted to preserve slavery in this country? or that the racial shadows from that war and time don't still today linger? If your post is an attempt in any way to somehow absolve or excuse that terrible period in our history, I'd say you failed.