[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 61°F  
High: 75°F ~ Low: 51°F
Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014

The South Lost

Posted Monday, November 15, 2010, at 10:14 AM

I have lived in the South for a majority of my life. Even as a child I never understood the flags that people flew that represented the South. I had always learned (in the great liberal institutions) that the Confederacy had lost the war and was no longer a country.

Then why? Why were people still flying flags representing a country that did not even exist?

I have always heard that the Confederate flag stood for many things, rebels, state's rights, a certain way of life. To me it has always stood for racism and slavery, nothing more nothing less.

It has always amused me when I hear some of the same people that fly the Confederate flag complain when they see a sports star displaying the flag of their home country rather than the United States. I doubt that they would understand the blatant hypocrisy so I have never actually attempted to explain it to them.

One thing that has always bothered me is all the talk of how brave these men in the southern states were. The last time I checked secession is a crime in the Constitution. They violated the Constitution yet we are supposed to honor them? Yes they were fighting for states rights but for a cause that was immoral at best, keeping the institution of slavery going.

There has always been a question of who actually started the Civil War. The facts in this case are that the South seceded from the Union, the United States still had a military post in South Carolina that they were holding. The Confederate Army fired upon that military post and the war began. Trying to discern from that who was to blame is quite tricky. Was the United States to blame because they chose to stay a military post that was technically in another country? Was the South to blame for firing on a United States military post, no matter where it was located?

What is most interesting about the war is that Lincoln never actually freed all slaves. He only freed slaves in the South, with the Emancipation Proclamation, but that was in a time of war, and the areas that he freed the slaves were in another country at the time. He did not free the slaves in the bordering slave states that never seceded. He also did not free the slaves that were in the South but were controlled by the Union.

In the end, it can be said that the reason that a lot of people in the South still have issues with letting go is the treatment by the United States government over the South following the war. The Democrats (and Lincoln) favored total re-admition to the Union in an effort to get past the unpleasantness of the war. Andrew Johnson and the Republicans, however, wanted the South to pay for daring to secede from the Union. We never got a chance to see what Lincoln's plan would have been or if it would have made things easier for all involved, but we did get to see Johnson's plan come to fruition.

The South was divided into military districts until a state had crafted a new Constitution. Once the state was re-admitted into the Union a new state government was formed, often with politicians not even from that state.

The South was left in economic ruin and the federal government under Andrew Johnson did absolutely nothing to help them. This is a large reason why the Democratic Party held power for so long in the South. It was the Democratic Party that came to the rescue in the 1780s after a decade of Republican rule throwing the carpetbaggers out of the South.

In the end, though, the Confederacy had lost the war and the country was no more. I bristle when I hear cries of "The South shall rise again" or the even more inane "The South won the war", because it is coming from people that say they love the United States. I do not understand it. Maybe I am not supposed to.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Sadly, when you ask a prejudiced person for truth, that truth seems to fit perfectly that 'prejudice.' Muddy the waters, from millions of sources, and prejudices, into a swamp, how can one now find the clean truth entombed there??

Even when a person reads books written, from that time, the prejudice is there, no matter the skill in which the truth is entombed.

The Southern mindset has not liked the Northern mindset, and the Northern cannot fathom the Southern; yet we still be of 'One Nation, Under God.' That is the Key, to our Republican form of Government. that 'discontent' seems, in my opinion, to finally melding into less violent attitudes, and beliefs. But then, I, too, may have a prejudice that I do not fathom (Sailor talk, for I ain't not perfect either). God knows.

Good food for thought, Michael. May we all learn to bury misunderstanding, and hatreds, so understanding may heal.

-- Posted by Navyblue on Mon, Nov 15, 2010, at 11:24 AM

Well since you are the one that brought up PC I guess you would know. I probably left the American flag story out because it had absolutely nothing to do with the above blog.

I actually agree with the suspensions but not for the reason I assume you believe I do. I believe if you look at the United States flag code you will see quite clearly that "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel".

But hey why stop there. I have seen several instances in the past few years of sports teams and fans using the American flag for their own purposes. Members of the TEA Party were notorious for flying the flag upside down even though their lives at that point in time were not in severe distress.

I don't believe the flag should be used as anything but a flag and a symbol.

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-co...

If you want to go ahead and support the South, you go ahead and do it. I know you said no such thing but isn't it amazing what you can get people to believe when you frame something someone else has said in a way that you can tear down, just so you can tear them down?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 15, 2010, at 12:37 PM

I'm sure the General Lee wasn't designed to showcase racism but rather the rebellious nature of southern pride. They scream "The South will rise again" at sporting events too but I know they aren't talking about slavery. That flag and the chants have had their meaning altered over the years. Some people have caught onto that fact and others refuse to acknowledge that fact.

There are two minorities who still see it as a symbol associated with slavery, racism or a separate country from the US and those minorities are the actual racists and people like Mike who think it still means what it used to. Southern pride associated with their chant and flag is either something you get or something you don't. Mike, you obviously don't get it but you don't have to belittle people because you don't get it.

I'm not even from the South but I get it and think they can do what they want with their flags and chants.

These days, the overwhelming majority of people who fly that flag are not supporting the idea of separation from the US or slavery, just Southern pride. Maybe the best way to explain it is that the South kept the flag but changed what it represents to them and that's something they should be proud of too. They have done more to kill the prior symbolism of that flag more than anyone who would just demand it be taken down or not displayed.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Nov 15, 2010, at 1:17 PM

If you would have bothered going to the link ocho you would have seen quite clearly that a patch does not violate the code. Good attempt at a gotcah, though.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 15, 2010, at 2:11 PM

"There are two minorities who still see it as a symbol associated with slavery, racism or a separate country from the US and those minorities are the actual racists and people like Mike who think it still means what it used to."

The South can change the meaning to the flag all the want to, that doesn't mean I have to accept it, but apparently in your reality if someone changes the meaning of something everyone must fall in line or be castigated for it.

It's very funny that you get on to me for belittling people yet that is all your entire post was, belittling people who still see the flag for what it is and not what you want them to see it as.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 15, 2010, at 2:14 PM

Mike,

Reading this blog really clears up why you weren't able to keep your last teaching job for me. If this is the approach you have to history, it's probably better for the children of Arkansas if you aren't teaching. Within your post you have contradictory and mutually exlusive claims.

You say that it is illegal to secede from the United States, if one takes you at your original word, how could there be a question about who started the war? If South Carolina didn't have the authority to leave the Union, how could they have the authority to claim that they were a separate country? How is this tricky?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Nov 15, 2010, at 2:58 PM

Mike,

You admitted that you didn't get it and I affirmed your statement. Why is that a problem? I didn't even say that you had to understand it but simply said not to belittle others because you don't understand it.

|didn't state that your view made me "bristle", didn't call you a hypocrite nor did I state how your views amused me. Yet, I'm the one belittling you? I simply explained the other side that you, admittedly, do not understand and refuse to accept. I didn't refuse to accept that you view the Confederate flag differently than others in the South. In fact, I acknowledged that you see the flag in that way and that acknowledgment was even included in my quote that you used when I said that you are one of the two minorities who interpret the meaning of that flag the same. The two minorities are on opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to their opinion on the merit of the meaning they associate with it but still interpret it to represent slavery and racism.

I never knew you thought offering up the other side of an issue constituted castigation. The only thing I may have castigated you for was belittling people because they don't agree with your view but I never once did so because of your view itself.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Nov 15, 2010, at 3:54 PM

This statement of yours SW convinces me of why I never really need to debate with you. You are simply incapable of talking to someone you disagree with without personally attacking them.

The truth is you have no idea about my method of teaching, nor does this blog give any indication of how I teach. My teaching life is separate from my regular life. I don't teach on here, there really isn't a point, especially when there are people like you, who instead of debating a point straight out, start out with a deeply personal attack.

I refused to even read the rest of your comment. I would like to think you regretted the baseless attack after you posted, but seeing no retractions I guess I am left to assume that you would rather attack someone and their profession simply based off their beliefs before getting to your main point. Maybe this means that you don't think your point has an validity or is weak. I don't know, and frankly I couldn't care less.

I'm sure this is where you will say that I am taking my ball and going home rather than debate you. You can go ahead and think that. It doesn't mean it is true, but I have figured out that truth really has no place on this blog, as long as it is contradictory to a certain way of thinking.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 12:33 AM

You go ahead and believe what you want to believe McCook. Go ahead and define belittling where it only applies to me but leave you completely in the clear. You can belittle people without using the catchphrases. You place me in a minority but offer no proof that I am in the minority. For all you know I could be in the majority and you could be in the minority, but that doesn't help your cause so you just state as fact that my side, my belief, is obviously in the minority.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 12:36 AM

Read the code ocho, it's all there. I really don't understand what you are not getting about the Flag code. It is actually pretty clear.

If you want to know what I think personally, I think the flag should only be worn by military, police and fire officers. Why that makes me wrong, I'm not sure? How about you explain it to me.

I also believe that every oath of office should be done on the Constitution as was originally written in the Constitution, but apparently that is now heresy.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 12:39 AM

Mike you are correct. The South lost the Civil War.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 6:07 AM

Mike,

I am certainly capable of talking with someone I disagree with without attacking them, I did so with Guillermo several times........but wait since he also posted as characters that agreed with me at times......makes my head hurt. I don't need you to read the rest of my previous post, other people certainly have and it proves again how silly you are.

The reason you never debate with me is the same reason you never debate with anyone, you are completely convinced of your own superiority and righteousness that you refuse to accept the possibility that people could disagree with you for legitimate reasons. All you do is repeat yourself or respond to tangential parts of a person's argument without addressing the core.

So in your response to McCook, you said he belittled you by saying you were in the minority, so your response is that he is in the minority. Aren't you by your own definition belittling him?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 8:34 AM

Mike,

Do you feel every rule should be enforced all the time or just those in the flag code?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 10:11 AM

Ocho a lot of time would be saved if you would just simply read the code. It isn't enforceable by law. She can't be arrested.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 10:44 AM

Hey if you guys are okay with flag desecration who am I to tell you that you are wrong. Drag the flag on the ground, wear it as clothing, hang it upside down when you aren't in absolute danger. If that's what you choose to do. Just don't get upset when someone burns the flag.

I'd be happy to debate with you SW if you were capable of a debate without personal attacks. You certainly are not capable of debating someone that believes differently then you. You have proven that over and over again. I felt your latest attack on me was well over the line, you saw it as me refusing to debate with you. Whatever works for you SW.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 10:48 AM

I haven't criticized her on my blog. You posted the link to the picture and continue going back to it so I really don't see how you get that I criticized her on my blog.

I would suggest you go back and read my comments that I have previously posted but you have proven that you don't so I will state it again.

I think it is wrong to wear the American flag as clothing. The only ones that should be exempt are men and women in uniform.

There are plenty of ways to show your patriotism other than desecrating the flag by wearing it as clothing, how about, oh, holding an American flag? They have them, and they are pretty cheap, probably cheaper than that shirt that she bought.

How do you know that her wearing the shirt is an "obvious display of patriotism"? Did you talk to her? Did she give an interview? Just because someone is wearing the flag doesn't necessarily mean they are being patriotic?

I am not big on public confrontations, I think they are deplorable. If the woman chooses to desecrate the flag in that manner that is here choice. If you want to support her desecration of the flag that is your choice. All I ask is next time someone burns the flag, don't complain about it. Desecration is desecration.

"Like the children in California, should she have been sent home before she "offended" someone?"

Naturally once again (a common theme for you) you leave out the context of the story and only present the story grabbing headline.

The students were sent home because the Assistant Principal felt that the students were doing it as provocations at Mexican students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo. Much to the chagrin of a lot of alcoholics in this country, Cindo de Mayo is not a go out and get drunk day for Mexicans, it is a cultural day for them.

As one student said, ""We don't deserve to get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...

Was it a provocation? They were teenage boys and teen boys love to do things that will cause stress in others. Was the school wrong and a little over the top for sending the boys home? More than likely. Should the boys or anyone else been wearing the American flag as clothing? No.

Here's the bottom line ocho, I believe that wearing the flag as clothing is disrespectful to not only the flag, but this country.

I'm sorry that you disagree but that's your right.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 12:08 PM

Mike,

"This statement of yours SW convinces me of why I never really need to debate with you."

Followed by a later post: "I felt your latest attack on me was well over the line, you saw it as me refusing to debate with you."

No, I saw your refusal to consider my post as you refusing to debate, just as you said.

You also said: "who am I to tell you that you are wrong" I'm glad you are finally coming around, now I look forward to you not telling people they are wrong when it comes to opinion.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 12:17 PM

Is it disrespectful for people to wear Mexican or Irish or German flags?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 12:19 PM

"She and the children were desecrating the flag, according to you, but the "peaceful Muslims" burning our flag and celebrating in the streets when Americans die, is OK, because she and the kids wore t-shirts with a flag on them?

When protestors stand on our flag and yell obscenities at a funeral procession for a fallen soldier, it's OK, because she and the kids wore t-shirts with a flag on them?"

Talk about sad. You took all context out of my comment to make it appear that I was supporting burning or standing on a flag when any person simply reading what I actually said instead of what you just made up would know that I find it disrespectful and a desecration to do any of that.

My point was and I'm sorry I apparently didn't make this any clearer was if you are going to be fine with one form of desecration of our flag don't complain when another desecration occurs. Patriotic in intent or not desecration is still desecration.

By the way when did I ever say I hated the TEA Party? Go ahead and look but I can go ahead and tell you that I didn't. I don't hate anyone (it's one of the morals that I was blessed with) for what they believe in. I just simply point out that their entire starting point on starting the TEA Party was based on falsehoods they believed would occur under Obama, which after two years still has not.

I don't hate you but I do find the real Ocho Cinco to be much funnier and more entertaining.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 1:31 PM

Ah the good old SW is back. Asking questions that really serve no purpose. Assigning meanings to statements that are not there so he can live on the allusion that he is always right even when he is wrong.

It's good to have you back.

As far as Mexican and Irish and German flag codes, I couldn't tell you I haven't looked into it and I really am not all the concerned with it.

I'm just glad you still apparently feel that personally attacking someone and their career path is a valid debating point.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 1:35 PM

Mike,

What questions served no purpose?

What am I wrong about here?

So if you don't care about other nation's flags, is it just the fact that you looked into the American code what you feel vested in? You don't care about principles just principals? Sad and predictable that you don't have a moral stance on this just a thinly established legal one. If it is disrespectful for me to do something then in my book it is disrespectful for others to do the same thing.

Did you type this post in an attempt at sarcastic humor or are you so blind to your hypocrisy that you have no problem claiming that I am "Assigning meanings to statements that are not there" and that this is a bad thing to do. Yet then later assingning meanings to my statements that aren't there with: "I'm just glad you still apparently feel that personally attacking someone and their career path is a valid debating point." Classic!

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 2:16 PM

Mike,

Also since you refused to debate my questioning your interpretation of history because you feel I "attacked" you, I'll repost, and maybe you will debate now.

You say that it is illegal to secede from the United States, if one takes you at your original word, how could there be a question about who started the war? If South Carolina didn't have the authority to leave the Union, how could they have the authority to claim that they were a separate country? How is this tricky?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 2:19 PM

Mike,

It's clearly evident to me that it is impossible to have a rational conversation with you without having you assuming sinister intentions into the conversation that do not exist. Perhaps it is just part of you're mindset and hence, helps explain your interpretation of this issue.

-- Posted by McCook1 on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 4:34 PM

"Hey if you guys are okay with flag desecration who am I to tell you that you are wrong. Drag the flag on the ground, wear it as clothing, hang it upside down when you aren't in absolute danger. If that's what you choose to do. Just don't get upset when someone burns the flag."

"Talk about sad. You took all context out of my comment to make it appear that I was supporting burning or standing on a flag when any person simply reading what I actually said instead of what you just made up would know that I find it disrespectful and a desecration to do any of that."

Mike,

Please stop takeing people out of context if you want to complain about people taking you out of context. You are making the left look bad.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 8:41 PM

I don't feel that you attacked me SW, you went after my career choice and then just to make sure I understood your point you go on to say that I shouldn't be teaching children in the first place (how you would know the circumstances of me not teaching even though I have never discussed that is beyond me).

Seriously, you can't even admit when you have made a personal attack? Instead of admitting the personal attack you attempt to turn it into an opinion. Why don't you just admit that you did it?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 11:34 PM

Didymus I don't believe I took anyone out of context. I believe that wearing the American flag as clothing is desecrating the flag, it's my opinion.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 11:35 PM

"Sad and predictable that you don't have a moral stance on this just a thinly established legal one. If it is disrespectful for me to do something then in my book it is disrespectful for others to do the same thing."

I have no clue what you are attempting to say. I have said several times that I find it disrespectful to wear the American flag as clothing. What is your point? I do have a moral stance on this. I believe I have made this perfectly clear.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Nov 16, 2010, at 11:37 PM

So Michael Hendricks thinks secession was unconstitutional. Up until 1860 the right of secession was viewed by North and South as being constitutional. All the early attempts at secession were by Northern states but they never got enough votes to carry through. Massachusetts in 1803 in opposition to the Louisiana purchase. Again in 1814 at the Hartford convention in opposition to the war of 1812. Even as late as 1845 in opposition to Texas being admitted to the union.

It was taught to West Point Military cadets by "Rawles view of the constitution" handbook in 1824 that a state had the right to secede.

Upon entering the union several states reserved the specific right to withdraw including New York, Virginia and Rhode Island.

The Articles of Confederation in 1783 declared "a perpetual union" but the Compact of 1787 ratified in 1789 as the U.S. Constitution did not include this language. Quite the contrary, the constitution would have never been ratified if it had included "perpetual union" as a requirement.

Would Mr. Hendricks be so kind as to specify where in the constitution that it is stated that secession is unconstitutional.

There was an attempt to try Confederate President Jefferson Davis for treason. It was to be the "Great Trial Of The Century". Special prosecutors were brought in to prepare the case against Davis. They all studied it and withdrew stating that he would be found "not guilty" based on the facts that Northern states had attempted secession and a historical precedent was set. A not guilty verdict would have exposed the fact that the North had prosecuted an unconstitutional and criminal war against the South.

I have the entire article and research available if anyone wants to study it. Contact me.

James W. King

Commander

Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp 141

Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson

Albany Georgia

229-436-0397

jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net

-- Posted by JamesWKing on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 6:33 PM

The Confederate Flag and the United States Flag are judged by different standards and criteria, and are not held to the same levels of accountability. In analytical science and weights and measures, comparisons are made against known standards. However, in politics comparisons are never made in a fair and impartial manner.

In order to understand the hypocrisy, ignorance, and bias that have been directed against the Confederate Flag, it is necessary to use the U.S. Flag (Stars and Stripes) as a standard of comparison. The purpose of this comparison is not to berate or disparage the U.S. Flag, but rather to prove that the Confederate Flag has received unfair and unequal treatment.

The genocide and racial cleansing of the American Indians took place under the U.S. Flag. The U.S. Flag flew over an unconstitutional and criminal war conducted against The Confederate States of America. Abraham Lincoln conducted this war for the benefit of wealthy Northern industrialists. Slaves were imported from Africa to America primarily by five Northern States: NY.,MA.CT.,NH.,and RI. The Confederate Flag was not involved. Finally, the U.S. Flag flies over a nation that has murdered an estimated 50 million babies by abortion.

Political Correctness has been used to attempt bans of The Confederate Flag from schools, parades, public and private property, and even historical monuments and sites.

The Confederate flag represents Constitutional Limited Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Government Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. To say that it represents racism and bigotry is a negative and shallow interpretation comparable to saying the U.S. flag represents the genocide of the American Indians and abortion.

-- Posted by JamesWKing on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 6:39 PM

Anyone that thinks the Civil War is over has no comprehension of what is happening in America. The war began about 1830 as a cold war when Northern Industrialists began to slander the South. They wanted a war to gain economic control over the South. The famous English writer Charles Dickens stated "The Northern onslaught against Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern States". The war became a Hot war from 1861-1865. It has been a cold war from 1865 to the present. So called "reconstruction" was the plunder, pillage, and rape of the Southern states. Even devout Northern abolitionists saw what was happening and took action to stop the corruption of carpetbaggers. But reconstruction did not end in 1877. The Northern industrialists had unfair sectional freight rates so high that no industry could come to the South and compete. Governor Ellis Arnall of Georgia finally shamed the Franklin Roosevelt administration into more or less equalizing the rates about the end of World War II. At this time the Northern Industrialists discontinued their suppression and war against the South. At this time a new group took up the cold war against the South. Since WW II the war against the South has been conducted by Northern Liberal Socialists-the same ones that control the mass news media-Hollywood, Newspapers, and TV. The first phase of Reconstruction II was the civil rights movement. There was a Northern Liberal Socialist in every back office planning and orchestrating every march and burning of the cities. Now the South is being force fed Reconstruction II Phase II-Multiculturalism and Political Correctness. Author Frank Conner wrote a 752 page book "The South Under Siege 1830-2000" which fully documents this continuing cold war against the South. Why is the South under attack? Because the South is the most Christian and Conservative section of America. The Northern Liberal Socialists have two goals for America 1. Convert America to Total Socialism and 2. Destroy Christianity and convert America to Secular Humanism. Once the Christian South is broken the rest of America will fall in line like sheep behind Socialism and Secular Humanism. But the South is "tough to break" so the Civil War continues as a cold war. The book is available from Amazon.com. NO THE CIVIL WAR IS NOT OVER. THE SOUTH IS UNDER FULL FLEDGED ATTACK TODAY JUST AS SURELY AS IT WAS DURING 1861-1865.

Socialist Karl Marx stated " A people separated from their heritage are easily persuaded". The infamous Communist Vladimir Lenin coined the term "Useful Idiots". Those who are participating in the suppression and ban of Confederate principles and values fit Lenin's category. Many white liberals and black Americans have been indoctrinated by the Socialists and told that the Confederate flag represents racism, bigotry, and a painful reminder of slavery. What it really represents is the principles of America's founding fathers: Limited Constitutional Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Government Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles.

-- Posted by JamesWKing on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 6:47 PM

June 3, 2010 marked the 202nd birthday of Jefferson Davis, president of the nation Confederate States of America which existed only from 1861-1865. The new nation formed from 13 Southern states was complete with a Constitution, Postal Service, president, senate, congress and cabinet members. After the fall of the new nation the states that were members of the confederation were required to undergo formal procedures for readmission to the nation United States of America. If these Southern states had only been in rebellion and not out of the union a formal readmission would not have been required.

The principle for which the Confederate States contended was "States Rights" and the Cause was "Southern Independence". In the spring of 1865 Confederate forces were forced to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources and States Rights was given a crushing blow and stigmatized by association with slavery. Former Confederate president Davis stated "The principle for which we contended is bound to reassert it's self, though it may be at another time and in another form". I think it is fair to say "The issue of States Rights has been thrust to the forefront of American politics". The election of a Socialist president and the appointment of a Socialist cabinet and Supreme Court member has brought forth the Tea Party Movement and various states have declared and reaffirmed State Sovereignty and are bringing law suits against the Federal Government. The modern States Right movement actually began during the Clinton administration.

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States (Federal Government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or the people". Our founding fathers (primarily Southern gentlemen from Virginia) designed the American system of government in the form of a Constitutional Federal Republic composed of a Limited Federal Government and Sovereign States. It was intended that the Federal Government have minimum control or interference in our personal daily lives and business affairs. The founders did not have in mind a gigantic Federal bureaucracy but rather a Federal Government that would abide by the 10th amendment. The Federal Government was to be small, have limited powers, take care of national events, defend America's borders, maintain the national army, and manage foreign relations. The rest of the rights and responsibilities belonged to the States and the People.

President James Madison stated" If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, take religion into their hands, appoint teachers in every state and pay them out of the public treasury, take education of children into their hands and establish schools throughout the Union, assume provision of the poor, undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads, in short everything from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police would be thrown under the power of Congress. It would subvert the very foundations of Limited Government established by the States and the People".

The greatest Statesman that the American Union has yet produced was John C. Calhoun (The man that Dougherty county's neighbor on the West side Calhoun county was named for) of South Carolina. He understood thoroughly the correct and proper operation of the Federal American Republic better than any American before and after including the Founding Fathers as he had the advantage of hindsight. In the 1840's he wrote "A Disquisition On Government" and "A Discourse On The Constitution And Government Of The United States". Yet he is the Cassandra of American Politics and his masterpieces are seldom read or taught in America's schools. You may recall that in Greek mythology that the Trojan princess Cassandra was given the power of prophecy by Apollo but with the condition that no one would believe her. Calhoun stated "The Constitution has admitted the jurisdiction of the United States within the limits of the several states only so far as the delegated powers authorize; beyond that they are intruders, and may rightfully be expelled". He is also quoted as saying "To maintain the ascendancy of the Constitution over the lawmaking majority is the great and essential point on which the success of the American system must depend; unless that ascendancy can be preserved, the necessary consequence must be that the laws will supersede the Constitution; and, finally the will of the executive, by influence of it's patronage, will supersede the laws". Calhoun further stated "The error is in the assumption that the General (Federal) Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States formed the compact, acting as sovereign communities". Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that the U.S. Supreme court is the final authority of the "Law Of The Land". Not so. It is the States that were intended to hold the power to make the final determination as to whether a law is in the best interest of it's citizens.

The ratification of the Federal Constitution of 1787 by the various states established a system of government whose operations and interactions were not and could not be wholly understood by the framers. Concerning the division of power between the General (Federal) government and the States, two groups formed: those who feared that the Federal government would absorb the powers reserved to the States (Anti-Federalists) and those who feared that the Reserved powers would absorb the Delegated powers (Federalists). The conflict that actually did emerge was different from that envisioned by the framers. A majority of states (Northern) captured the power of the Federal government and this combined power squared off against a minority of states (South). It was intended by the Founding Fathers (Framers of the Constitution) that the Federal Limited Constitutional government by virtue of it's structure and independent of the vices of it's office holders, was to be a government of all members of the union without sectional prejudice.

If there is a single over-arching lesson to be learned from the American Civil War (War of Northern Aggression), it is that by 1860 the knowledge and skill in self-government was not to be found except in the Southern states. The failure of the bid of the Southern states for "States Rights" and "Independence" sealed the political fate of Americans for decades and perhaps permanently unless the "Current States Rights Movement" can reverse the usurpation of power by the Federal government. Abraham Lincoln is the father of the current Socialist American government. The defeat of the Southern armies involved the defeat of the existing impetus for liberty. Unequal to the moral and intellectual demands of a more complex constitutional order the American states were reduced to "glorified administrative districts submissive and answerable to a central imperial power in Washington DC." By a lethal combination of military and legislative warfare the people of the States were reduced from being citizens of a Constitutional Federal Republic to subjects of an empire.

Government cannot establish and guarantee liberty. Liberty can only be established and maintained by the skillful ongoing self-assertion of a people guided by insight and political knowledge.

-- Posted by JamesWKing on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 6:54 PM

The 10 Causes of the War Between the States

or The One Cause of the Civil War-Northern Aggression

By James W. King

Historians have long debated the causes of the Civil War and the Southern perspective differs greatly from the Northern perspective. Based upon the study of original documents of the War Between The States (Civil War) era and facts and information published by Confederate Veterans, Confederate Chaplains, Southern writers and Southern Historians before, during, and after the war, I present the facts, opinions, and conclusions stated in the following article.

Technically the 10 causes listed are reasons for Southern secession. The only cause of the war was that the South was invaded and responded to Northern aggression.

I respectfully disagree with those who claim that the War Between the States was fought over slavery or that the abolition of slavery in the Revolutionary Era or early Federal period would have prevented war. It is my opinion that war was inevitable between the North and South due to complex political and cultural differences. The famous Englishman Winston Churchill stated that the war between the North and South was one of the most unpreventable wars in history. The Cause that the Confederate States of America fought for (1861-1865) was Southern Independence from the United States of America. Many parallels exist between the War for American Independence (1775-1783) and the War for Southern Independence (1861-1865).

There were 10 political causes of the war (causes of Southern Secession) ---one of which was slavery--- which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to get the South's resources (land-cotton-coal-timber-minerals) for pennies on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and decentralists. The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even if slavery had never existed.

A war almost occurred during 1828-1832 over the tariff when South Carolina passed nullification laws. The U.S. congress had increased the tariff rate on imported products to 40% (known as the tariff of abominations in Southern States). This crisis had nothing to do with slavery. If slavery had never existed --period--or had been eliminated at the time the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 or anytime prior to 1860 it is my opinion that there would still have been a war sooner or later.

On a human level there were 5 causes of the war--New England Greed-New England Radicals--New England Fanatics--New England Zealots--and New England Hypocrites. During "So Called Reconstruction" ( 1865-1877 ) the New England Industrialists got what they had really wanted for 40 years--THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR.

IT WAS A POLITICAL COALITION BETWEEN THE NEW ENGLAND ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND THE NEW ENGLAND FANATICS AND ZEALOTS THAT CAUSED SOUTHERN SECESSION TO BE NECESSARY FOR SOUTHERN ECONOMIC SURVIVAL AND SAFETY OF THE POPULATION.

1. TARIFF

Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to them. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate (Morrill Tariff) to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 eras (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

2. CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS

The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited Federal Government and Sovereign States. The North wanted to and did alter the form of Government this nation was founded upon. The Confederate States of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as established by America's founding fathers who were primarily Southern Gentlemen from Virginia. Thus Confederate soldiers were fighting for rights that had been paid for in blood by their forefathers upon the battlefields of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The Constitution of the United States of America. His War of aggression against the South changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a Democracy ( with Socialist leanings ) and broke the original Constitution and Bill of Rights. The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations after his reelection in 1864. A considerable number of European Socialists came to America and fought for the Union (North).

3. CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM

The South believed in basic Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible. The North had many Secular Humanists (atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians). Southerners were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that man, science and government can solve all problems. This philosophy advocates human rather than religious values. Reference: Frank Conner's book "The South under Siege 1830-2000."

4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

Southerners and Northerners were of different Genetic Lineage's. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original Britons), Scottish, and Irish lineage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to be of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction. The two cultures had been at war and at odds for over 1000 years before they arrived in America. Our ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon princes at the battle of Baden Hill (circa 497 AD --516 AD). The cultural differences that contributed to the War Between the States (1861-1865) had existed for 1500 years or more.

5. CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES

The North wanted to control Western States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were politically attached to the North. They passed laws against slavery that Southerners considered punitive. These political actions told Southerners they were not welcome in the new states and territories. It was all about control--slavery was a scapegoat. Radical Fanatical New Englanders had sent psychopath John Brown to Kansas and he murdered Southern farmers who were not even slave owners. The War Between the States actually started in 1854 in Kansas and not in April 1861 at Fort Sumter South Carolina.

6. NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES

The Northern Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South's resources for pennies on the dollar. They began a campaign about 1830 that would influence the common people of the North and create enmity that would allow them to go to war against the South. These Northern Industrialists brought up a morality claim against the South alleging the evils of slavery. The Northern hypocrites conveniently neglected to publicize the fact that 5 New England States (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York ) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of the slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state owned fleets of ships.

7. SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS

This political cause ties in to the above listed efforts by New England Industrialists. Beginning about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began to slander the South. The Industrialists used this tool to indoctrinate the common people of the North. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up to a feverish pitch. Southerners became tired of reading in the Northern Newspapers about what bad and evil people they were just because their neighbor down the road had a few slaves. This propaganda campaign created hostility between the ordinary citizens of the two regions and created the animosity necessary for war. The Northern Industrialists worked poor whites in the factories of the North under terrible conditions for 18 hours a day (including children). When the workers became old and infirm they were fired. It is a historical fact that during this era there were thousands of old people living homeless on the streets in the cities of the North. In the South a slave was cared for from birth to death. Also the diet and living conditions of Southern slaves was superior to that of most white Northern factory workers. Most Northern poor white factory workers did not have single family housing until after 1900 whereas Southern slave families usually had single family housing. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and slander.

8. NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THE SOUTH

Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo (Haiti) in the 1790 era and that the French (white) population-(men, women, and children) had been massacred. The abolitionists published a terrorist manifesto and tried to smuggle 100,000 copies into the South showing slaves how to murder their masters at night. Then when John Brown raided Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859 the political situation became inflammatory. Prior to this event there had been more abolition societies in the South than in the North. Lincoln and most of the Republican Party (68 of 117 members of congress) had adopted a political platform in support of terrorist acts against the South (based upon the Hinton Helper book-The Impending Crisis) . Some (allegedly including Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Brown's terrorist activities. Again slavery was used as a scapegoat for all differences that existed between the North and South.

9. SLAVERY

Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery. However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. The first state to legalize slavery had been Massachusetts in 1641 and this law was directed primarily at Indians. In colonial times the economic infrastructure of the port cities of the North was dependent upon the slave trade. The first slave ship in America, "THE DESIRE", was fitted out in Marblehead, Massachusetts. Further proof that Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery is found in the diary of an officer in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. He stated that "he had never met a man in the Army of Northern Virginia that claimed he was fighting to preserve slavery". If the war had been over slavery, the composition of the politicians, officers, enlisted men, and even African Americans would have been different. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves (Custis estate) prior to 1864 whereas Union General Grant's wife Julia did not free her slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South. Mildred Lewis Rutherford (1852-1928) was for many years the historian for the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). In her book Truths of History she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army (315,000) than the Confederate Army (200,000). Statistics and estimates also show that about 300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union. Clearly the war would have been fought along different lines if it had been fought over slavery.

The famous English author Charles Dickens stated "the Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states."

10. NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES

Proof that Abraham Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort (A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.

On April 17th 1861, Governor Letcher of Virginia sent this message to Washington DC: "I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers of Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern states and the requisition made upon me for such a object-an object in my judgement not within the purview of the constitution or the act of 1795, will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war; having done so we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South."

The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES 1861-1865 occurred due to many complex causes and factors as enumerated above. Those who make claims that "the war was over slavery" or that if slavery had been abolished in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed or in 1789 when The Constitution of the United States of America was signed, that war would not have occurred between North and South are being very simplistic in their views and opinions.

The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt. Raphael Semmes-Confederate Ship CSS Sumter (and after 1862 CSS Alabama) occurred during the war on August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is stating his reasons for fighting. Captain Hillyar expressed surprised at Captain Semme's contention that the people of the South were "defending ourselves against robbers with knives at our throats", and asked for further clarification as to how this was so, the exchange below occurred. I especially was impressed with Semmes' assessment of Yankee motives - the creation of "Empire"!

Semmes: "Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North", and I explained to him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition, almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls; the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law"

Captain Hillyar: "All this is new to me", replied the captain. "I thought that your war had arisen out of the slavery question".

Semmes: "That is the common mistake of foreigners. The enemy has taken pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that "No slavery" would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it".

"It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending it no more than any other species of our property - it is all endangered, under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for independence".

The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in America, which had been so cherished by America's founding fathers as the principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England, understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4, 1866, Lord Acton wrote "I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon).

As Illinois Governor Richard Yates stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2, 1865, the war had "tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best government is that which governs least.

Years after the war former Confederate president Jefferson Davis stated "I Am saddened to Hear Southerners Apologize for Fighting to Preserve Our Inheritance". Some years later former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt stated "Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are Beyond Redemption".

James W. King

Commander Camp 141

Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson

Sons of Confederate Veterans

PO Box 70577 Albany, Georgia 31708

229-436-0397

jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net

-- Posted by JamesWKing on Wed, Nov 17, 2010, at 6:57 PM

"In the end, though, the Confederacy had lost the war and the country

was no more...."

Who, in a world of nations has the right to conquer another nation,and force the people of that nation into subjugation.

Secession was not then, and is not now, illegal to the constitution of the union.

Simply because a people and their nation have been conquered does not automatically mean that they should or must relinquish aspirations of their own sovereign nation,nor does it mean that they should relinquish their love for the symbols of that nation. It also does not mean that the occupiers of that conquered nation should malign those symbols into a meaning that covers and hides the real reason for the war fought.

The South fought the war in self defense in order to perpetuate Constitutional Liberty and self determination of the Confederate nation.The north fought to preserve the union of states,when this reason lost momentum they fought to abolish the institution of slavery a reason the gained more war support.So there is two reasons the war was fought, and they are as different as the nations that fought it.

"Vindiciamus"

-- Posted by Vindiciamus on Sun, Nov 21, 2010, at 7:25 PM

In the end the South lost. That's the bottom line. There is no occupation, if there is then it is the single longest running occupation in the history of the world.

If you two believe, as you have stated, that the South is being occupied, or never lost the war, or any other argument that you hold, then why attempt to claim to be attempting to save the Union now. You both have clearly stated just how evil the United States is so why be loyal to this country?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Nov 21, 2010, at 11:56 PM

"In the end the South lost..."

Yes, the South lost (and with it so did the yankee north when it comes to the founders intended form of self governance) and yes I am against the union if it is a forced union (which it is, and has been since the our ancestors lost ).

"There is no occupation..."

If you check history and governance you will find the Confederacy never surrendered the war. It was the Generals of the army of the Confederate States of America the simply gave up the fight in order to help preserve the Confederate spirit and continue the bloodline of a new Nationality. President, Jefferson Davis never surrendered the government it just stopped functioning.

"if there is then it is the single longest running occupation in the history of the world."

On this point sir, you are correct.

"If you two believe, as you have stated, that the South is being occupied, or never lost the war, or any other argument that you hold, then why attempt to claim to be attempting to save the Union now."

Believe this, it was mostly Southern born/bread men that framed the Constitution. Those ideologies of Constitutional Liberty and protected rights for all,(I know here comes your slavery issue) It is not necessarily that we wish to "save" the union, I could care less what happens to the union, it is the form of government that we try to save. The principle contained within Representative Republic, this form of democracy was specifically created as the antithesis of the other form of democracy "parliamentary in style" and automatically socialist in substance. Democracy rule was not the intent of the founders nor is it with me, where my rights may be taken because three is greater than two.. My main reason for the apologia (not to be construed as apologize) of Confederate Heritage is that upon close scrutiny in a fare court of law it was, and still is, the yankee breed that is wrong. It is also my personal belief that in those days it was the republican governing principles/ideologies, those not consistent with the principles contained within our form of governance Representative Republic or powers enumerated to it by the Constitution. I guess in short we are doing what our ancestor did and trying to protect our Constitution (form of government).

You both have clearly stated just how evil the United States is so why be loyal to this country?

We have to save Yankees in order to save ourselves. Remember we lost, or is it still going? Longest occupation and longest cold war (closer to freezing because we are, losing now that yankees are loosing) in history. The Confederacy may have lost the hot war but politically it still has influence. you can belee dat yo!

-- Posted by Vindiciamus on Wed, Nov 24, 2010, at 8:25 PM

"you can belee dat yo!"

This was unexpected.

-- Posted by Damu on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 12:13 AM

LOL!

-- Posted by Vindiciamus on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 9:45 AM

The main reason we MUST save our true form of governance is because it is what makes us "Americans" Confederate and yankee alike.Remember there were yankees that helped to frame the Constitution so we in effect owe them consideration when it comes to the principles of self governance,but the founders actualy constructed a "NEW" self-governing ideology the first of its kind on earth.By doing this America or those States over there on the left shore of the british realm that are politicaly and economicly dependant on each other agree by contract/Constitution.This "IS" what makes America America and Americans Americans.

-- Posted by Vindiciamus on Thu, Nov 25, 2010, at 9:59 AM

The Flag Code, though not enforcable under any criminal/civil law, is what I was taught in Red Willow County as the guide patriotic Americans followed to show respect for the flag, the symbol of our great nation. It's sad that that tradition is evidently no longer honored by most Americans.

People have the right to fly whatever flag they choose in our country, but even after ready all of the info posted previously, can find no reason a patriotic American would want to fly the Confederate Flag.

-- Posted by ontheleftcoast on Mon, Nov 29, 2010, at 11:59 AM

Because it is the other, American flag.How blind can one be?

-- Posted by Vindiciamus on Fri, Dec 3, 2010, at 10:37 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)