In Defense of the Confederate Flag

| |

confederate flag wikimedia

I am by no means a Southerner, and I don’t feel any particular affinity for the Confederate flag. However, recent events have led me to feel compelled to offer a rather simple defense for this flag, though it doesn’t hold any special meaning for me.

Ever since the Charleston shooting, the PC police have crawled out of the woodwork, and have derided the Southern battle standard as a purely racist symbol, and have demanded that it be removed from every public building in the South. There’s even a Facebook petition now that is calling for a national “burn the Confederate flag day.”

But what exactly are these people railing against? What makes this symbol so repulsive that it needs to be burned? Is it because it was flown by armies that defended a slave holding regime? Or because it was carried by supposed traitors? Or perhaps because it has been proudly displayed by white supremest organizations ever since?

Here’s the problem I have with people who froth at the mouth every time they see someone with this flag. If you’re going to burn the Confederate flag because you think it stands for racism and slavery, I suggest you get started on the American flag shortly thereafter.

If I recall correctly, and maybe my history is a little rusty so feel free to call me out on this, but didn’t the Union government accept slavery right up until the Civil War? Heck, there were plenty of Northern states that allowed slavery, which they abandoned in the early 19th century, largely for economic reasons rather than ethical concerns (and also because the British Army had liberated most of them during the Revolutionary War).

Even after the Civil War occurred, there were a few slave holding states that stayed in the Union such as Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland. There were even slave-owning officers in the Union army. There’s a reason why the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in states that seceded. Lincoln didn’t want to anger many of his own officers, or cause any more states to leave.

And while we’re on the subject of Lincoln, let it be known that he could have cared less about the institution of Slavery. His main goal was to preserve the Union. Freeing the slaves was incidental in that process. He said so himself

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.”

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

And long after Lincoln was dead, the Federal government proved itself to be one of the most racist, genocidal, and imperialistic regimes in the history of the world, as they marched westward, brutally subjugating every native tribe they came across, before entering the 20th century as the world’s preeminent superpower. In this regard, the American flag is stained with more innocent blood than the Confederate flag ever was.

As for the notion that this flag is a treasonous banner, so is the American flag, a symbol that was born during the Revolutionary War.

And what of the fact that it was a symbol admired by white supremacists for decades? Well, there’s another flag that racists have often called their own.

kkk american flag

Make no mistake though, I’m not suggesting you go out and burn the American flag. If you think that, then you’ve missed the point. All I’m saying, is that’s hypocritical to hate the Confederate flag if you love the American flag.

When it comes to symbols, and these flags are symbolic figures, is that they mean different things to different people. Everyone who waves the American flag sees something unique in it. They all see the America that they want to live in, and they disregard the awful actions that have been carried out in its name.

The Confederate flag is no different. While it has been and still is a symbol that is admired by racists, I would wager that there are more non-racist Southerners who carry it. For them, it’s simply an undeniable part of their heritage; a symbol that marks a bloody milestone in their history, which has set them apart from the rest of America.

So please, if you think that the Confederate flag is solely the domain of people like Dylann Roof, I implore you to think again. It’s just a symbol, and like all symbols, it means many different things, to many different people, and those meanings will continue to change in ways we can’t imagine, long after we’re all in the ground. Quit getting hung up on what this symbol originally stood for, and recognize what it means to people today.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by Joshua Krause of The Daily Sheeple.

Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • mike day

    To who this may concern As the fools rush in and state a confederate flag is baad baad flag ,so very soon we will see the same for the American flag , the left is out for symbols of American and idiots in our political bands played right along . First they came after cigarEttes on planes than bars, symbol all of these . Soon the divide will be so wide the freedom to be independent will be there cause.

    • Mike

      As is the goal of the race baiters and hate mongers on the left. Destroying American culture is the name of the game for them.

  • angrymike

    The crucifixion of the Stars and stripes is next, these ppl are never satisfied, already in Kalifornia kids were sent home from school because they had the American flag on their shirts !! The left won’t be satisfied until they crush the entire country with political correctness….

    • http://www.shitsenders.com Я0llyJ0g3r

      The PC road leads straight to hell on Earth!

    • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

      Given the regularity with which the American flag is desecrated by supposedly good and patriotic Americans, it might be better if it was saved from having to endure any more. Anyone who thinks they know what desecration is, usually hasn’t read title 4 of the United States Code, where it is defined for legal purposes.

    • Happy Quil

      That’s because they want to indoctrinate the kids to love communism.

      6th Graders Asked to Design “Communist” Flag
      http://www.infowars.com/6th-graders-asked-to-design-communist-flag/

    • Razedbywolvs

      That is more common than you might think.
      I know a ½ Mexican girl that got suspended for having the American flag on her truck on Cinco De Mayo. The reason given was “it caused racial tensions”.
      Apparently no one had informed the school that Cinco De Mayo is pretty much an American holiday… not celebrated in Mexico.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54Eaw96nIk8

    • Reverend Draco

      As the “Stars & Stripes” is the US Battle Flag, perhaps that wouldn’t be all bad.

  • http://www.shitsenders.com Я0llyJ0g3r

    I am not from the South but they have just motivated me to fly that flag!

    • Guillotine_ready

      I am from the south and never previously thought about flying it, but I very well may now.

      • Mɿ jinǫlɘƨ

        im not in the south and im looking to buy the flag and mount it in to the back of my truck.

    • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

      I’m motivated to simply by the fact that what the CSA seceded to get away from is still the basis for continuing considerations of secession today.

      • http://privacy.com MARCUS

        funny how that gets buried in the revisionist history books.

        • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

          Revisionism can go either way. It can expose the dirt or bury it deeper. Thomas J. DiLorenzo has always done the former in his many excellent books about the Lincoln administration and what the war between the states was really all about. If his book, “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War” were to be required reading in a public school American history class, there would be difficulty in finding enough seats in future classes.

      • kringlebertfistyebuns

        The only thing the CSA seceded to “get away from” was the end of slavery.

        DiLorenzo’s a hack, BTW.

        • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

          How many scholarly books have YOU written? He knows more about history than you are demonstrating the intelligence to understand.

          • kringlebertfistyebuns

            He’s a Neo-Confederate apologist. Openly.

            Secondly, the states were *quite* clear about why they were seceding. One only need read their Declarations of Causes for Secession to figure that out.

            Basically the argument DiLorenzo (and really all Neo-Confederates) present is: “Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            In other words, you are using a total lack of due diligence for your specious premises?

          • kringlebertfistyebuns

            The Mississippi Declaration? Is that the same one whose first full paragraph begins:

            Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.

            …and which goes on to detail 16 different reasons – the specific ones of which (12 by my count) ALL have to do with the perpetuation of slavery?

            The other declarations are equally laden with reasons related to slavery.

            The South wanted to keep their slaves, expand slavery *and* have the North co-operate in that venture. The North wasn’t interested in doing that. What of the rights of the Northern states?

            The reason Lincoln ordered the invasion of the South was to preserve the Union. Full stop.

            You can look up the definition of “neo-confederate” yourself, I think.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            Wikipedia says: “Neo-Confederate is a term used by some to describe the views of various groups and individuals who portray the Confederate States of America and its actions in the American Civil War in a positive light.”
            The only problem with that is that has never been a true civil war in the US, yet. The “civil war” was a just another war of conquest staged by another treasonous president.
            Lincoln attacked the CSA for the same reasons why Bush attacked Kuwait and Iraq, and Obama will likely attack Iran.
            Preserving the union took a back seat to preserving the southern colonies.

          • kringlebertfistyebuns

            The only problem with that is that has never been a true civil war in the US, yet.

            This is a special-pleading fallacy. It’s like the old Marxists trope: “We don’t know if Communism works because it’s never been tried!”*

            You’re trying to game the definition of “civil war” in order to whitewash historical fact.

            The “civil war” was a just another war of conquest staged by another treasonous president.

            If he was conquering another independent nation, it can’t be treason. It’s just conquest, in that case.


            Lincoln attacked the CSA for the same reasons why Bush attacked Kuwait and Iraq, and Obama will likely attack Iran.

            The South attacked first.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            The federal government was attacking the states that became the CSA before they even left the union. There is no provision in the Constitution saying that those states who join the union can’t secede, so they did, one by one, and then formed the CSA, a sovereign country, which Lincoln then attacked without a declaration of war from Congress, just as presidents have done so since WW2, which is obviously treason.
            You’ll be calling the wars against multiple countries in the middle east civil wars next?

          • kringlebertfistyebuns

            The federal government was attacking the states that became the CSA before they even left the union.

            Citation, please. In particular, please describe how any purported actions were actually attacks.


            There is no provision in the Constitution saying that those states who join the union can’t secede,

            There’s nothing allowing them to, either.

            which is obviously treason.

            Treason consists solely of levying war against the United States or providing aid & comfort to its enemies there, Mr. Strict Constructionist.

            You’ll be calling the wars against multiple countries in the middle east civil wars next?

            Don’t be stupid.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            OK, I won’t be like you.

          • kringlebertfistyebuns

            Concession accepted. Have a nice diurnal anomaly.

    • Mɿ jinǫlɘƨ

      for got to link you this

      • http://www.shitsenders.com Я0llyJ0g3r

        Too bad those guys aren’t aware like us. They should’ve known to not all congregate in one place, let alone a friggin’ cable car, before a ground breaking revealing that could really shake things up. If I was one of those guys, I would’ve known better and “got a bad case of the runs” and stayed behind, lol.

        • Mɿ jinǫlɘƨ

          there all sick in the head was watching this video

          • http://www.shitsenders.com Я0llyJ0g3r

            I heard about that but never really investigated, thanks for the vid, now I’ll know more.

          • Mɿ jinǫlɘƨ

            it puts a hole new perspective definition on them in Hollywood

          • http://www.shitsenders.com Я0llyJ0g3r

            I bet, can’t wait to see it later.

  • Andrew Johnston

    “The flag is a symbol, and I prefer to leave symbols to symbol-minded people” -George Carlin

  • Rascalhorse57

    I’d like to hear what Paula Dean has to say about this.

    • HarpDiem

      She is a “Georgia Coed.” Why would you ask her?

  • Rascalhorse57

    The Land of Diversity will soon be the Land of Absurdity…or has it always been.

  • W.A. Jones

    FWIW the greatest scoundrel from the Union, U.S. Grant, owned a slave whom he freed in …1859. His family also owned slaves.

    My source? The National Park website, no less.

    • http://privacy.com MARCUS

      given that slavery didn’t actually end for several years post war (1865?), the concept that the civil war was started for the reason of “ending slavery” is false. Besides, there were plenty of northern slaveholders. Fact is the south got tired of footing the bill for western expansion, and they got tired of other states not returning their “property” (I’m not going to argue the ethics of it.. that’s what slaves were in those days)

      • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

        If Lincoln’s purpose for killing so many people was to end slavery, he would have declared war in the Emancipation Proclamation instead of delivering it as a afterthought.
        Anyone who thinks slavery was or is ended needs to read the first sentence of the 14th Amendment very carefully and thoughtfully.

        • What Me worry?

          FWIW the Emancipation Proclamation that everyone learns about and cites
          was the SECOND one Lincoln did. The original could not be delivered
          until the Union had won some substantial victories, else Union slave
          holders and those that feared (yeah, FEARED) free black men would
          further divide the remaining Union.

          Remember, the ACW was about
          States Rights! Slavery was a doomed part of the equation as both sides
          knew. Simply, slavery had started costing too much to maintain as a labor system!

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            If slavery was doomed from an economic standpoint, why was massive treason on the part of the president required to end it? You don’t think the retention of the colonial south was more important to the foreign interests that controlled the White House?

      • kringlebertfistyebuns

        The war didn’t begin because of slavery. It began because the CSA seceded.

        However, the CSA seceded because they wanted to keep their slaves.

        • http://privacy.com MARCUS

          No. Try again. The south seceded for several non slavery related reasons including some issues with western expansion and lucrative southern states being taken to the cleaners with taxes and tariffs to support northern industry. Not slaves. If slavery was an issue, why did the emancipation proclamation free southern slaves, leaving northern slaveowners untouched?

          • kringlebertfistyebuns

            some issues with western expansion

            By which you mean whether slavery would be permitted in the vast, newly-acquired Western territories. Directly a slavery issue.

            and lucrative southern states being taken to the cleaners with taxes and tariffs to support northern industry.

            Which “tariffs” are you referring to? Certainly not the much-ballyhooed (among Confederate apologists anyway) Morrill Tariff? The one that was only passed *after* several states had seceded? The one that could not have passed but for the absence of the Southern senators who had been blocking the bill in the Senate?

            <blockquote why did the emancipation proclamation free southern slaves, leaving northern slaveowners untouched?

            First of all, there were basically no slaves in the North by the time the war began. All the slaves in the North (excluding the border states, which weren’t really in “The North” anyway) would’ve fit in a diner.

            ALSO:

            1) Because the President justified it under his war powers, which necessarily did not apply to areas not in rebellion;

            2) It provided a legal framework for freeing slaves in areas later captured by the Union Army;

            3) He didn’t want to piss off the border states.

          • http://privacy.com MARCUS

            Which “tariffs” are you referring to? a rather lengthy history of them starting about 50 years before Morrell. Tariff of 1816, the Tariff of 1828 where you see the first open pushback by individual southern states like South Carolina and leading to their Nullification act, the “compromise tariff” was just the start.

          • http://privacy.com MARCUS

            By which you mean whether slavery would be permitted in the vast, newly-acquired Western territories Of course not. I’m referring to how those lands were acquired to begin with (both politically and financially opposed by many southern states), and the north expectation of funding the expansionist policies by taxing the affluent southern agriculture industries (and thereby directly BENEFITING FROM slavery). I am also referring to the erosion of individual states rights opposed by the south (lousiana Purchase, Cohens vs. Virginia, Martin vs. Hunter’s Lessee). Besides the obvious constitutional abuse of Jefferson in the western expansion, there were other valid reasons for states to oppose pushing further into the Mexican territories at the time. Following the eventual war with Mexico that resulted, the Wilmot Proviso was proposed setting the stage for what eventually would be an eventual demise of slavery (…Although that demise was pushed back many years by persons on both sides of the political and geographic spectrum of the us by various compromises, treaties, and provisos until Lincoln used the 13th amendment and Emancipation proclamation as a tool to garner political and international support for the north and eliminate the legitimacy of the confederate government. Thats right: political reasons). If you have any doubt as to the deep divide over the constitutionality of states rights and federal/governmental control over individual property you need only look at the Confiscation act and the debate that took place over the following year

          • http://privacy.com MARCUS

            First of all, there were basically no slaves in the North by the time the war began. All the slaves in the North (excluding the border states, which weren’t really in “The North” anyway) would’ve fit in a diner.”

            HOW MANY northern slaves were left is irrelevant. the fact is slavery still existed in the north post war. your point that its “just a few” does not in any way diminish the fact that they existed, and did so as someones property. If the war was fought to end slavery (and slavery wasnt used as a political tool), they should have been freed on day ONE.

          • http://privacy.com MARCUS

            ALSO:
            1) ask yourself, WHY was it applied via War powers..? If the north truly and wholeheartedly believed in freeing the slaves for its own sake, what did the president need to act without the other two branches of government?
            2) No, that would be the original (and subsequent) Confiscation Act
            3) Again, politics.

          • http://privacy.com MARCUS

            Lets be frank here: Theres no doubt enslaving another human being and denying them basic god-given human rights for any reason, regardless of treatment, is morally reprehensible and should have been ended. The war was not started for that reason. The was end was hastened by the political use of emancipation (which was good for basic human rights, and for ending a bloody conflict); however, to claim the war was fought to “end slavery” is incorrect and disingenuous

          • http://privacy.com MARCUS

            finally, I apologize for the comment spam. I’d like to engage you in a reasonable debate but could not fit into one comment. I’m not trying to be a jerk so… pardon the multiple comments.

    • HarpDiem

      Do you have any idea who is “writing” the history on the National Parks website?

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

    I suspect that Dylann Roof is just as ignorant about the American and Confederate flags as the vast majority of Americans are, and at least as any other high school dropout that espouses mindless racial beliefs. That is one of the things that makes him such a good scapegoat, regardless of what he may have done, or not.

  • fatwillie

    It matters not what the flag is or stands for, the fact the first amendment gives one the right to freedom of expression regardless is all that matters, If you disagree with that, then you do not believe in the constitution, and are a hypocrite if you only think it applies to things you and you alone agree with.

  • HarpDiem

    “(and also because the British Army had liberated most of them during the Revolutionary War)” That simply is not true.

  • Mɿ jinǫlɘƨ

    well

  • Mɿ jinǫlɘƨ

    Battle Of Gettysburg (Full Documentary)

  • ligersaurus

    I propose we slaughter that most Democrat of symbols, the jackass.If the obombas think of the Stars & Stripes as “a damn flag”, I wonder what they think of the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia (commonly referred to as the Confederate flag).

  • ligersaurus

    I would venture to guess that any flag with a crescent moon and scimitar on it would be just fine anywhere, any time.

  • Nick

    Just another example of the PC police trying to erase yet one more piece of American culture and history. There is no rational argument that will dissuade them. This isn’t about any actual reasonable or rational issue. Their demands are based purely on cultural genocide and once they have successfully railed on the Confederate flag they will follow your advice and go after the American flag. Many of them already plainly state that they loathe the flag.

  • Gearmoe

    Civil War was ended some time ago. Flag is meaningless and of no power. It’s a historic symbol, icon, reminder of freedom gained by many in its defeat. The propaganda is making people to believe anyone coming in contact with it must hate and want slaves. US is quickly attempting to move to a new Gov’t and away from the liberty many died for.

  • Gil G

    Actually why the hell not? It’s not an official State flag or anything but a topical flag kept alive by self-styled rebels.

    • Nick

      When you’re dealing progtards don’t even bother considering what they are asking you for right now. Most of the time the progtards don’t give a damn about what they are demanding, they merely care about the precedent.Think further ahead, think about the precedent and what they will use that precedent to justify next. Their demands always start small, simple demands that seem innocuous. However down the road when they are saying the founders should be scrubbed from history because they owned slaves and then using their erasure of the confederacy from history as justification.

      Remember, for people who care so much about the “hate” represented by the “confederate flag” the Clintons, their frontrunner today, happily campaigned wrapped in it in Arkansas.

      • Gil G

        Actually you would have a good argument against those wanting to hoist a rainbow flag in support of homosexuals on a public pole in a public place than because you’re anti-gay because that flag is also topical. Likewise the “stars and bars” has no merit as it and is kept alive by who like “tweaking The Man.”

    • Nick

      Here if it helps, take the “confederate flag” and the emotions it stirs completely out of the picture and think about what they are demanding. They are demanding that society at large bend to their will because they are “offended”. Can this offense be quantified in actual losses either monetary or in property? No? Can this offense be taken back to a criminal act? No? Can this offense be connected to a single perpetrator? No?

      So they are demanding that they be allowed to censor others because of a grievance for which there has been no loss in property or currency and which can’t be linked to any crime or individual perpetrator. Furthermore this “offense” can’t even be spelled out in concrete terms or codified, it is merely that they feel offended. We all know how rational “feelings” are.

      The simple truth is the left sees another opportunity to install themselves as cultural gate keepers that get to dictate unilateral outside of any code, law or even consensus on what is “offensive”. What does this set the precedent for? Well of course they are going to say next that they have no way to enforce these edicts without “hate speech” laws.

      • Gil G

        And why not? It’s akin to religion – do it on your time and dime. If you want hang that flag from your home or cover your car with stickers of that flag then suit yourself but don’t expect others to support it on public buildings.

        • Nick

          Yeah? What about when they come demanding that images of the Enola Gay are removed from public buildings and museums because dropping the bomb was a “war crime? How about when they come condemning the Alamo because they were Mexican traitors not American heroes? Or maybe when they come squealing about how the founding fathers shouldn’t have public memorials etc because they were “slave owners”? You going to roll over this easy for them to? I really don’t give a damn about the “stars and bars” as I’m not a southerner but they have played this game with the cross and nativity scenes, they are playing it with this dumb flag now and I’m tired of it. Not one more step back. This leftist grievance whackamole and their incessant squeezing of real tragedies like lemons to get every drop of their agenda out of them is sickening. They keep doing it because it works and people like you are oh so eager to roll over.

          • Gil G

            I don’t the see the sequitor. The “bars and stars” is a lesser flag of the C.S.A. I don’t for a moment see the C.S.A. as the “good” guys and the Union as the “bad” guys thus the “bars and stars” has to be held high and waved proudly but is a remnant of a nasty part of the U.S. history.
            The “bars and stars” has no more right to be flown in public buildings any more than the Mexican flag can be. Suppose some folks wanted a public building to fly a Mexican flag to celebrate “diversity?” How many here would want it taken down post-haste and only American flags flown because “it’s America, Jack!” then? It’s the same thing.

          • Jay

            And this roll over to them – – – will eventually cost you and all Americans their Freedom.

  • BigGaySteve
  • YeahRightOkay

    …I get so tired of trying to tell folks that only rely on government issued elementary books…that the Civil War was not over slavery…it was over the 10th Amendment and the Morril Tariff…slavery was incidental…though it did need to happen…however it actually didn’t stop…since they use the phrase ‘indentured servitude’ for all…

    • Gil G

      Then why did the CSA Founders keep mentioning slavery? They were pro-abolitionist but wanted to do it on their own terms instead of being dictated by the U.S. Government?

      • YeahRightOkay

        Lincoln was in the same frame of mind, freeing the slaves was just incidental. Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland were all slave states that fought with the Union. Several of Lincoln’s generals were slave owners and he didn’t want to upset the cart. Here is what he said:

        “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.”

        “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,
        and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I
        could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do
        that.”

        “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
        institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have
        no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

        See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/in-defense-of-the-confederate-flag_062015#sthash.vMrcPBmT.dpuf

        • Gil G

          I’m talking about the C.S.A. Founders not the Union.

          • YeahRightOkay

            …when do you think the battle flag was originated…???…during the Civil War…

            …there was a pro-abolitionist movement on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line…but the Civil War was not over slavery…it was over the 10th Amendment and Morril Tariff…

            …why the CSA put slavery in there…I have no idea…except for the loud voices to abolish slavery…why does the government mandated elementary history books say if was over slavery…another unknown…unless they don’t want to put Lincoln in a bad light…as his statement says and the link shows above…

          • kringlebertfistyebuns

            @Gil_G:disqus @YeahRightOkay:disqus So basically, we should pay little regard to what the Confederate states said in their secession documents, or in the debates thereupon, or even in the speeches of their founding fathers?

            I call to your attention the famous “Corner Stone” speech. It was given at Savannah by Alexander Stephens (VP of the CSA) on 21 March 1861:


            Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

            http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

    • kringlebertfistyebuns

      The Morrill Tariff didn’t pass until after most all the CSA had seceded. In fact, their secession made its passage possible, since Southerners were blocking its progression in Congress.

      Lincoln didn’t even sign the tariff into law. James Buchanan signed it – on 2 March 1861, two days before Lincoln was inaugurated.

      There were a whole raft of slavery-related issues that led to secession, but the straw that broke the camel’s back for the South was the election of Lincoln. At that time, the Republican Party was essentially a Free Soil party, opposed to slavery in general, but particularly opposed to the expansion of Slavery in the West and Southwest. That was a big problem for the South.

  • ccambridge

    The confederate flag was never created as an image of racism. It is a symbol of secession from the northern aggressor. If you examine the flag, there are 13 stars representing the 13 colonies on the X. The X stands for no more .. No more being part of a system that was treading on the southern state’s rights.

    • Gil G

      Actually it was as the Battle Flag off North’s Virginia’s Army rather than being an actual national flag. Then again how was the CSA going to be a nation of racial equality?

  • patriot156

    I hope tons of people in protest start flying thier own Confederate flags against all this PC crap!

  • Floyd

    I personally know of many black men who are proud southerners who wear with pride the stars and bars. These very same men are reenacters of the civil war. I got to know them well at the Gettysburg reenactments. When I was a boy and first met them, they set me straight. when I asked how they could they explained to me, that I have been brain washed by public schools in to believing the war was about slavery when it was not. In fact the war was about tarifs and Lincoln’s new federal reserve. Lincoln wanted to move the countries economy to a gold standard and away from commodity like cotton.

    Lincoln was the worst president he didn’t like the blacks. He thought they were dirty savages much like the Indians. His intention was to after the war to round up all blacks and send them the South America to start an American colony and get them out of America. Look it up.

    he personally wanted to execute 300 Dakota Indians in Minnisota but was advised not to, so he randomly chose 38 men, women and children from the 300. youngest of them was only 8 years old and hung them all at once. Look up the ” Dakota 38″.

    Lincoln was the greatest divider of this country not unifier. I’ll be flying my Confederate Banner high, high.

    And these p.c. Asses should go eat some grass. Look up Dakota 38 for the understanding of that statement.

  • CavMed

    Two links with information:
    Confederate flag removed from Alabama capitol
    Governor orders removal of the flag: Published On: Jun 24 2015 09:55:55 AM CDT
    http://www.channel3000.com/news/confederate-flag-removed-from-alabama-capitol/33748436

    Alabama Gov. Bentley removes Confederate flags from Capitol grounds
    http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/confederate_flag_removed_from.html

    I don’t know what law or legal precedence
    backs it up, other than the fact that Alabama’s
    state government is completely
    overrun by traitorous communists.

  • CavMed

    I commented the other
    day that a physical defense
    of Confederate memorials, sites
    and cemeteries needed to
    be organized immediately.
    Now look at what happened this
    morning at the Alabama statehouse
    ALABAMA!
    Holy shit!!!
    I thought it was bad in my commie saturated
    AO, but for communists to score such an
    easy and unopposed victory in Alabama should
    be a wake up call to a great many of you naive
    sons of bitches.
    If my comment does not apply to you ignore it,
    let it pass over you like a refreshing summer breeze.
    However, for the rest of you “Patriots” always spouting
    how you are ready to fight to the death, I have only
    one comment for you: ALABAMA!!!
    The “Patriot sphere” is very quiet today about this, along
    with a complete lack of ANY offensive action to stop th
    communist offensive cold.
    GOD DAMN!!!

  • Gearmoe

    Now I see them attacking Confederate historical statues. When you see this, this is why when the NRA et al suggest we can’t give them an inch, this is why. Where does it stop? A=it won’t. Ebay, Amazon, censoring sales. It’s all hysterical agenda propaganda political rhetoric aimed to take it all down, erase history. Remember, this is the same game they play with the 2A. Are they above creating a patsy to create a national panic campaign? No they aren’t. Trusting them will be a mistake. They want more control over the people. Media brainwashing schemes, like this Confederate flag hysteria is how it looks and is done.

  • Emily

    It represented an army fighting to preserve slavery and white supremacy. If you want to read something else into that symbol it’s your thing, and you can fly whatever flag you want on your own property. It has no place in our government. I don’t see any German government buildings flying a Nazi flag for the sake of heritage…and I don’t think people would balk at those opposed because they are just getting offended over a measly symbol.

  • SBIAM

    REMEMBER YOUR EVIL SOUTHERN DEM O RATS

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/when_erasing_symbols_of_slavery_dont_forget_the_democratic_party.html

    June 26, 2015

    When Erasing Symbols
    of Slavery, Don’t Forget the Democratic Party

    By Anthony J. Ciani

    In the aftermath of
    the mass shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in
    Charleston, SC, there are increasing and ever louder calls for the removal of
    all symbols, objects and persons connected to slavery or the Confederate States
    of America. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and so all honors given him
    should be renamed, and all copies of the Declaration of Independence
    shredded. Robert E. Lee fought for the South, so all his effigies should
    be melted down and his rebel flags shredded, even though the Confederacy had
    nothing to do with the shooting. The Confederacy is no more; however,
    there still exists an organization that gained power from instituting slavery
    and segregation: the Democratic Party.

    The founders of the
    Democratic-Republican Party were prominent slave holders, like Thomas Jefferson
    and James Madison. Its opponent, the Federalist Party, was founded by
    abolitionists, like Alexander Hamilton. While the main point of
    contention was Federalism vs anti-Federalism, the parties were strangely
    divided between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists. The Democratic-Republican
    Party split in 1832, due to the rivalry of John Quincy Adams (abolitionist) and
    Henry Clay (emancipator) against Andrew Jackson (slavery advocate).
    Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren (anti-abolitionist), James K. Polk (slavery compromiser), and Stephen A. Douglas (slavery
    fence-sitter) founded the current Democratic Party. The abolitionists
    wandered in the wilderness for a while, mixing with Whigs, and finally
    coalescing into the Republican Party in 1854, with abolition as its singular
    purpose.

    During the first half of the
    1800’s, slavery was a contentious and persistent issue. Many slave owners
    and Democrats viewed slavery as a necessary evil, and abolition as unnecessary
    contention. Thomas Jefferson advocated for mass emancipation and
    deportation, for he viewed the black race as too childish, and based on the
    1791 Haiti rebellion, unable to handle the anger engendered by their
    enslavement. Another common view held that the black race was simply
    unable to care for itself, and thus slaves were better off under the care of
    their masters, and that slavery only needed greater compassion, a view still
    held by the Democratic Party to this day. Why do you think Democrats
    promote government assistance programs for African Americans? If
    Democrat-advocated programs are taking care of blacks, then who is the master?

    Even if they publicly stated
    that slavery was wrong, Democrats consistently worked against abolition and
    emancipation, often by compromising: abolitionists get a free state, slavers
    get a slave state. In this way, Democrats could publicly side against
    slavery, while obtaining the support of wealthy slave owners. Does this
    tactic seem familiar, on other issues? No slaver ever supported a
    Republican; they meant what they said and did what they meant, and it started a
    war.

    But that was yesterday’s
    Democratic Party! Guess again. After the Civil War, Democrats
    implemented new strategies to re-enslave or oppress African Americans.
    They introduced things like Jim Crow laws. President Woodrow Wilson (D) segregated the Army and Federal
    government. They were integrated by Republicans before him, and again by
    Republicans after Roosevelt. President Roosevelt appointed a leader of
    the Ku Klux Klan to the Supreme Court, and another KKK leader, Robert Byrd, was
    a prominent Democratic Senator for decades. Republicans had tried to pass
    the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts since the mid-50’s, but Democrats
    blocked them, until President Johnson (D) gutted the Acts and passed them as
    part of a scheme to pacify blacks and snare their votes.

    Presidents Roosevelt and
    Johnson passed public assistance, known as the War on Poverty, and heavily
    promoted it among African American neighborhoods. For many African
    American communities, it might be better termed the War on
    Prosperity. When real African American leaders like Bobby Gore rose up to free blacks from their new masters, Democrats like
    Mayor Richard J. Daley were more than happy to pound them back down. The Democratic
    Party has employed a new generation of house slaves, called community
    organizers, to convince African Americans that all of their woes are due to
    their skin, and to train blacks to beg for government to take care of them,
    unaware of their new master.

    Martin Luther King Jr. had a
    dream of a colorblind society. How strange that after his death, two very
    well connected Democrats, Jessie Jackson (who was there when it happened) and Al Sharpton, profited greatly from
    fomenting racial tension in a race-aware society. The Democratic Party
    has an evil and vile history of slavery and racism, that continues to this day,
    and it deserves to be erased. Will any reporter ever ask Hillary or
    Barack when they will leave the Party?

    Blind abandonment of symbols,
    organizations and persons for their association with slavery or the Confederacy
    is counter-productive. General Lee’s battle flag is also known as the
    “rebel flag”, and has long been a symbol against central
    authority. It was, after all, the symbol of the rank-and-file soldiers,
    for whom the Civil War was by far about resisting an intrusive Federal
    government, and by less about slavery. General Lee, who adopted the flag
    as the symbol of his army, had a rather interesting view on slavery: it was
    immoral and wrong, but The Allmighty intended it, for the betterment of the
    black race. A Merciful
    Providence, to whom two thousand years are but as a single day, that would
    lead the black race [in America] to better things.

    What are these better
    things? One hundred and fifty years later, African Americans have been
    the victims of a public education, community organization and welfare scheme,
    carefully designed and orchestrated to tie them forever to their new master:
    Government under the Democratic Party. A better, more compassionate form
    of slavery, as advocated by the slavers. The new house slaves, the
    Jacksons, Sharptons and Crumps of the Democratic Party and Grievance Industry,
    have fixated African Americans on the ire of their slave blood and color of
    their skin, to distract them from the pecking party meant to subjugate them, but this tactic can backfire.

    It should be obvious from the
    founding of this Country, but nearly every person here has slave blood.
    Rather than being privately owned, we were all government owned serfs (slaves,
    in another language), with kings, dukes, counts, barons and knights as our
    masters. A better, more compassionate form of all-powerful government, as
    Democrats love to advocate, is as illusory and oppressive as a better, more
    compassionate form of slavery. Absent the propaganda, African Americans
    are about as conservative and libertarian as it gets. Filled with the ire
    of slavery and ever more anti-authoritarian, perhaps they will one day forever
    leave the Democratic Party and join with other conservatives to reestablish the
    promise of a free America, for everyone.

  • kringlebertfistyebuns

    Whataboutery and false equivalencies. You haz them.