Chuck Baldwin: The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered

Chuck Baldwin was the 2008 presidential nominee of the Constitution Party.  He wrote the following commentary today in response to the recent efforts to censor the Confederate battle flag from public view.

File:Confederate Rebel Flag.svg

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.

In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.

Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!

In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.

Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.

One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”

The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “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.”

The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”

Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?

It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.

By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.

I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?

That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”

Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.

In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.

If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!

By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully–just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”

And look at what is happening now: in one instant–after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag–the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.

The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.

In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish.  The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.

Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”

Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:

The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag

Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.

To read more of Baldwin’s columns visit Chuck Baldwin Live.

140 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin: The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered

  1. Andy

    Saying that people should be able to fly the Confederate flag is not the same thing as “supporting” the Confederacy.

    There is no legitimate reason why the Confederate flag can’t fly over historic sites/markers/memorials, and of course private individuals ought to be able to display it however they want.

  2. Becky

    Response to Andy Craig: Even if you were to ignore all the historical evidence that the War of Northern Aggression wasn’t about slavery and I simply concede to you that it was, I still think it would be a perfectly libertarian response to support secession (and the CSA) foremost over any other comparatively minor issue (ie slavery taxes…etc). Your little video clip above even makes clear that the Confederate Constitution did not prohibit secession from the CSA. So as slavery continued to die its natural an uneconomical death and more confederated states chose to no longer support slavery they would be free to leave, right?. Or do you think Jeffereson Davis would have declared war against these wannabe soveriegn states just as Lincoln did? The principles of voluntarism and liberty should always be the utmost priority to a libertarian. Without the majority fighting for these first principles, the minority, who currently has no voice in the matter, can never hope to achieve them.

  3. ATBAFT

    Mr. Baldwin’s spin on the War for Southern Independence is debatable. For one, the losers did essentially write the history of the “Civil War;” the “Lost Cause” myth took center stage and
    prevailed in many history books until balanced beginning in the 1960s. For another, Grant freed his single slave in 1859 and his wife, Julia Dent Grant, did not legally own any of the slaves her father provided to her. Lee was required, by his father in laws will, to emancipate all the slaves willed to his wife before a certain date. Lee took until the very last day of that five year requirement to free them. Yes, Lincoln was a racist…as was virtually every white person, including most abolitionists, alive North and South at the time. One could go on and on.

  4. Andy


    Becky

    July 9, 2015 at 9:18 pm

    Response to Andy Craig: Even if you were to ignore all the historical evidence that the War of Northern Aggression wasn’t about slavery and I simply concede to you that it was”

    I think that the reality was that both sides used the issue of slavery for propaganda purposes.

    The Confederacy was not perfect by any means, but it also was not as bad as some people make it out to be.

    Slavery existed longer under the American flag than the Confederate flag. Slave ships flew the American flag, and I don’t believe that any slave ships flew the Confederate flag. The Fugitive Slave Act was passed under the American flag.

    Before the South seceded, Abraham Lincoln said that he had no intention of interfering with the institution of slavery, and after the South seceded, he said that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves he’d do it, and if he could preserve the Union by freeing some of the slaves, but keeping other slaves in slavery, he’d do that as well. His primary concern was preserving the Union, which was at least in large part in order to keep tax revenue flowing in from the South, which paid a disproportionate amount of the taxes at the time in comparison to its population.

    Session is most certainly legitimate, and this country was in fact founded by 13 colonies that seceded from England.

    Does this mean that the South’s reasons for seceding were legitimate? I’d say that some of them were, but some of them were not, or at least not wanting to pay a disproportionate share of the nation’s taxes was a legitimate reason for wanting to secede, but wanting to preserve slavery was not a legitimate reason to secede.

    Was the North really going to wage a war against the South because they really wanted to free the slaves (and there were several Union states and DC that still have slavery during the Civil War)? Probably not.

    It certainly seems hypocritical to say to take down the Confederate flag because it has ties to racism, while ignoring that the American flag also has ties to racism. Not only did slavery exist longer under the American flag than the Confederate flag, but many Native Americans (aka-“American Indians”) were murdered and/or driven off of their land under the American flag.

    Have any racists used the Confederate flag? Yes they have, but racists have also used the American flag and the Christian cross, so should these things be banned as well.

    Since this controversy about the Confederate flag has been in the media lately I’ve looked up some pictures and videos of the Ku Klux Klan, and I’ve seen lots of pictures and footage of them carrying and waving American flags, and also carrying Christian crosses, so since the KKK has used these symbols, going by the “logic” of the people who want to get rid of the Confederate flag, should the American flag and the Christian cross be banned as well?

  5. Jill Pyeatt

    This is a good article, and I admit to learning some things I didn’t know. I’ve gotten over the lies that Lincoln is some kind of hero for blacks, but I didn’t know some of the article’s other info. I like Chuck Baldwin, even though some of what he says I disagree with. There was this interesting sentence in the article: ” The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB).”

    I’m also suspicious of the whole incident. The planned drill going on, the video of the casual arrest of Dylann Roof, and the “manifesto” he supposedly wrote are huge clues to me that this was just another in a list of false-flags to get us unarmed. There may have been people killed, but I’m willing to bet a big organization or people within that organization had a lot to do with it.

  6. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt

    July 9, 2015 at 10:08 pm

    “I’m also suspicious of the whole incident”

    Here are a couple of other things about the Charleston church shooting that were very suspicious:

    1) They reopened the church for a service 4 days after 9 people were supposedly shot in it. It is unusual for a crime scene, particularly one where 9 people were supposed to have been shot and killed, to be opened to the public that quickly. It takes time to do an investigation and clean up all of the blood.

    2) The government rushed $29 million in tax payers money to the families of the supposed victims. Losing a family member is a very thing, but still, it does not cost that much to bury somebody. There are people that die every day in this country, and the government gives them nothing. While assuming that people died, this was certainly tragic, but why give them $29 million from the tax payers?

  7. Andy

    “Session is most certainly legitimate”

    Should read, “Succession is most certainly legitimate…”

  8. paulie

    One point a lot of people ignore is that the “confederate flag” was never used until after the war. There were three CSA national flags; the first one did not resemble the flag illustrated in the article, and the other two included a square version of it in the upper left corner only. The closest thing to the post-war flag was a square version of the same design which one of many CSA battle flags. The rectangular “confederate flag” we see today was first flown by racist lynch mobs such as the KKK that used terror to re-establish white rule in the south after the war, and was re-popularized by popular resistance to desegregation in the 1950s, 60s and on. Unlike the US flag or the Christian cross, the neoconfederate flag originated and spread for this purpose.

    Of course people should be free to personally fly the neoconfederate flag or the nazi flag or whatever flag they want on their own property, in historical contexts and the like, but that’s different from making it an official state symbol or flying it at the capitol or incorporating it into a state flag.

    Also, for those who have questions about the causes for secession, please refer to the secession resolutions of the various southern states. That’s not necessarily the same thing as discussing northern states’ reasons for war, though.

    If the southern aristocracy was not hell-bent on an impossible mission to preserve chattel slavery, European nations would have intervened on their side and they would have won the war. They would also have benefited from arming black troops, (ex)slave as well as free, much earlier in the war. However, they couldn’t have preserved slavery for long even if they seceded, because the fugitive slave laws no longer being in effect in the north would have made escape too common to keep slavery profitable, and the European nations that formed the market for southern cotton were increasingly unwilling to do business with nominally Christians nations that continued to have legal chattel slavery. For this reason, slavery ended in every nation in Europe and the Western hemisphere by 1898. It was the irrational insistence by slavers to hang on as long as they could which doomed them to lose the war, and swept any of the other reasons to secede off the table.

  9. Andy

    “paulie

    July 9, 2015 at 10:29 pm

    One point a lot of people ignore is that the “confederate flag” was never used until after the war.”

    What is popularly known as the Confederate flag today was the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia, which is one of several flags used in the Confederacy. The original version of it may have been closer to being a square than a rectangle though.

    I see know rational reason as to why one or more version of the Confederate flag can’t be shown at historical sites/markers/memorials, even if said historic sites/markers/memorials are considered to be government property, and of course private individuals ought to be able to display the it however they see fit.

  10. Andy

    Paul said: “Unlike the US flag or the Christian cross, the neoconfederate flag originated and spread for this purpose.”

    I’d bet you’d find American Indians who’d disagree about the American flag, as in to them it represents oppression from the white man, who came and took their land and killed their people.

    Many people have also been murdered in the name of Christianity.

  11. paulie

    What is popularly known as the Confederate flag today was the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia,

    Not exactly. That flag was exactly square, unlike the flag used today. Not closer to square, but exactly square.

    I see know rational reason as to why one or more version of the Confederate flag can’t be shown at historical sites/markers/memorials, even if said historic sites/markers/memorials are considered to be government property, and of course private individuals ought to be able to display the it however they see fit.

    It would help if you didn’t argue against something which nobody has disputed. Refer to my prevous answer, this time with extra emphasis:

    Of course people should be free to personally fly the neoconfederate flag or the nazi flag or whatever flag they want on their own property, in historical contexts and the like, but that’s different from making it an official state symbol or flying it at the capitol or incorporating it into a state flag.

  12. paulie

    This site have several pictures of the KKK using the American flag:

    http://www.rulen.com/kkk/

    Once again you are arguing against a strawman. No one here has disputed that the KKK has extensively used the American Flag and Cross. But they did not originate them, unlike the neoconfederate flag.

    If we were discussing WW2 would you defend the nazi flag by pointing out that the British, French, and US flags were also identified with extensive histories of racism, imperialism, colonialism, mass murdering wars, slavery and even genocide? Would it be OK if a German state incorporated the nazi flag as part of its state flag today or flew it at the state capitol?

  13. paulie

    Baldwin:

    How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861?

    Well, setting the issue of right to secede aside, it may have something to do with the striking difference in tone between the declarations of causes of secession by the seceding parties in the two instances. Compare and contrast, for instance:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–

    vs

    Whereas, the constitutional Union was formed by the several states in their separate sovereign capacity for the purpose of mutual advantage and protection;

    That the several states are distinct sovereignties, whose supremacy is limited so far only as the same has been delegated by voluntary compact to a federal government, and, when it fails to accomplish the ends for which it was established, the parties to the compact have the right to resume, each state for itself, such delegated powers;

    That the institution of slavery existed prior to the formation of the federal Constitution, and is recognized by its letter, and all efforts to impair its value or lessen its duration by Congress, or any of the free states, is a violation of the compact of Union and is destructive of the ends for which it was ordained, but in defiance of the principles of the Union thus established, the people of the Northern states have assumed a revolutionary position toward the Southern states;

    That they have set at defiance that provision of the Constitution which was intended to secure domestic tranquillity among the states and promote their general welfare, namely: “No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due”;

    That they have by voluntary associations, individual agencies, and state legislation interfered with slavery as it prevails in the slaveholding states,

    That they have enticed our slaves from us and, by state intervention, obstructed and prevented their rendition under the Fugitive Slave Law;

    That they continue their system of agitation obviously for the purpose of encouraging other slaves to escape from service, to weaken the institution in the slaveholding states by rendering the holding of such property insecure, and as a consequence its ultimate abolition certain;

    That they claim the right and demand its execution by Congress, to exclude slavery from the territories, but claim the right of protection for every species of property owned by themselves;

    That they declare in every manner in which public opinion is expressed their unalterable determination to exclude from admittance into the Union any new state that tolerates slavery in its constitution and thereby force Congress to a condemnation of that species of property;

    That they thus seek by an increase of Abolition states “to acquire two-thirds of both houses,” for the purpose of preparing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolishing slavery in the states, and so continue the agitation that the proposed amendment shall be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states;

    That they have, in violation of the comity of all civilized nations and in violation of the comity established by the Constitution of the United States, insulted and outraged our citizens when traveling among them for pleasure, health, or business, by taking their servants and liberating the same, under the forms of state laws, and subjecting their owners to degrading and ignominious punishment;

    That to encourage the stealing of our property they have put at defiance that provision of the Constitution which declares that fugitives from justice into another state, on demand of the executive authority of that state from which he fled, shall be delivered up;

    That they have sought to create domestic discord in the Southern states by incendiary publications;

    That they encouraged a hostile invasion of a Southern state to excite insurrection, murder, and rapine;

    That they have deprived Southern citizens of their property and continue an unfriendly agitation of their domestic institutions, claiming for themselves perfect immunity from external interference with their domestic policy;

    We of the Southern states alone made an exception to that universal quiet;

    That they have elected a majority of electors for President and Vice-President on the ground that there exists an irreconcilable conflict between the two sections of the Confederacy in reference to their respective systems of labor and in pursuance of their hostility to us and our institutions, thus declaring to the civilized world that the powers of this government are to be used for the dishonor and overthrow of the Southern section of this great Confederacy. Therefore:

    Be it resolved by the legislature of the state of Mississippi that, in the opinion of those who now constitute the said legislature, the secession of each aggrieved state is the proper remedy for these injuries.

    For other CSA states see http://sageamericanhistory.net/civilwar/docs/secessiondocuments.html

  14. paulie

    Baldwin:

    And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

    Excellent point. It’s a real shame the northern states did not secede.

  15. paulie

    Baldwin:

    Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him?

    As a supporter of “traditional marriage” Baldwin’s answer should be yes.

    For the vast majority of human history and in many countries even today marriages were/are arranged, with the woman (and in many cases also the man) having no choice in the matter. As for forcing to stay, no fault divorce is a relatively recent invention, and women being forced to return to abusive husbands by judges and police was common as recently as the 1970s. I’m sure it’s still common in the Muslim world and a few other places now.

    Baldwin is a pastor, so he should be pretty familiar with these verses in the Bible:

    null

  16. paulie

    Baldwin:

    why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery?

    That would be a good question to ask the people who authored the CSA states’ secession resolutions. It seems they did not trust Lincoln and the Republicans to keep their word in this regard.

  17. paulie

    Baldwin:

    The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

    As I mentioned earlier, the South could have won on this issue if they had ended slavery, which was doomed in either case. Too bad they refused to acknowlede that reality.

  18. paulie

    Baldwin:

    That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain.

    The larger point is correct, but DC was a slave district wedged between two slave states, and as Baldwin points out, Maryland tried to secede. If they had, DC would have been surrounded by the CSA, and would have almost certainly ended up as part of the CSA, with the northern government relocated somewhere up north.

  19. paulie

    Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began.

    Supposing the CSA captured DC and Lincoln, who here thinks that all of the union states would have just let it go at that? I really doubt this would have “ended the war before it really began,” to say the least.

  20. paulie

    In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war.

    If the south had ended (chattel) slavery first, that wouldn’t have worked, and the south would have won the war and seceded. Given that they wouldn’t have been able to save slavery anyway (see above) it was really stupid and self-defeating of them not to have done so. If tariffs had been the real issue for the south, they could have won.

  21. paulie

    many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army.

    And the boneheaded southern leadership kept them from doing so until late in the war, thus helping doom themselves, and only because of an irrational fear of armed blacks. Yet another reason they would have won the war if they had ended slavery first. But, see above.

  22. paulie

    By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end.

    OK, let’s use logic here: if this is true, what exactly prevented the CSA regime from ending slavery of their own accord? Anyone? What about the border states that stayed in the union…if they recognized that slavery was evil and wanted to end it, who was stopping them?

  23. Mark Seidenberg

    Slavery was not ended right after the “War of Northern Aggression” on the Confederate States
    of America. It just moved North to Alaska and was conducted by the United States Government.
    It was not ended until 1962 when that government agreed to pay wages in money to the Aleuts living on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska for there labor.

    The issue in Alaska now over Confederate Heritage is not the display of the Confederate Battle
    Flag it is the trashing of Wade Hampton III, who was known as the “Savior of South Carolina” and in Alaska as a key player in getting Civil Government (though limited) in Alaska on 17 May
    1884. He was honored starting with the 1980 census with the name of the “Wade Hampton
    Census Area” an equivalent to a county in the Unorganized Borough of Alaska. It was in 1913
    that a Judge in the Second Judicial District of Alaska at Nome established a place in that area
    named after Wade Hampton III, the late Senator from South Carolina. On 1 July 2015. Bill
    Walker, Governor of Alaska trashed Wade Hampton III, because he was a slave owner and
    a Lt. General in the Confederate States of America.

    On 1 July 2015, Bill Walker wrote the Commission of the Census Bureau and requested a
    name change for that Census Area, because Wade Hampton III owned slaves and was a
    Lt. General in the CSA. I am informed that the Commission will approve a name change
    at the end of next week, unless it can be stop by a member of Congress introduces legislation
    to stop the name change. It issue is akin to the issue of keeping the name of Mt. McKinley
    in Alaska, which members of the Ohio delegation has been blocking a name change since
    1975. Please note H.R. 229 related to the name of Mt. McKinley of Alaska. If a member
    of Congress will introduce a bill to prevent the name change it would be good to block a
    name change until the next Congress.

    Does any of the reader of this post know a Congressman that might be interested
    in doing his or her part in stopping the trashing of the Hon. Wade Hampton III, viz.,
    just introduce a bill stating that the “Wade Hampton Census Area” will not change
    the name of that Census Area, which has been the name of that Census Area since
    circa 1980. It should be noted that the location was known in the 1970 Census as
    “Wade Hampton Census Division”. In 1960 that location was known as the “Wade
    Hampton Election Division” yet on July 11, 1982, Title 6, Chapter 18 of the Alaska
    Administrative Code was repealed.

    So far I have contacted the office of U. S. Representative Steve Palazzo (R-Miss.)
    and he is considering to do the blocking of the name change so the name of
    Wade Hampton III will not be trashed by the Census Bureau next week. If readers
    have suggestions of other members of Congress that might want to stop the trashing of
    Wade Hampton III, please post that suggestion.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

    \

  24. langa

    Also, for those who have questions about the causes for secession, please refer to the secession resolutions of the various southern states.

    Official propaganda should not necessarily be taken at face value. The Confederate leaders most likely felt it would be much easier to drum up support for secession and the subsequent war effort if they claimed to be fighting for the superiority of the white race and the “Christian” tradition of slavery, rather than to oppose high tariffs, which would have been viewed by many then (as now) economically illiterate people to be a burden only on the rich plantation owners.

    However, they couldn’t have preserved slavery for long even if they seceded, because the fugitive slave laws no longer being in effect in the north would have made escape too common to keep slavery profitable, and the European nations that formed the market for southern cotton were increasingly unwilling to do business with nominally Christians nations that continued to have legal chattel slavery. For this reason, slavery ended in every nation in Europe and the Western hemisphere by 1898.

    All true, which just further highlights the absurdity of the claim that Lincoln and his fellow Whigs (err…Republicans) were motivated primarily by opposition to slavery. If that had really been the case, Lincoln could have easily ended slavery by allowing the Southern states to secede, and then freeing all the slaves in the remaining states. Instead, he allowed slavery in the Northern states to continue, even after the Emancipation Proclamation (which didn’t apply to slave states in the Union). To his credit, however, Lincoln himself never tried to claim that he was primarily motivated by opposition to slavery. In fact, he said just the opposite, on numerous occasions.

  25. paulie

    Not sure why the Alaska tangent but slavery still hasn’t been ended. Prison industries comes to mind. Millions of slaves work in prison industries, which contract at both stare run and privately run prisons. Most of these slave are imprisoned for doing things which should have never been considered crimes, and most of the rest are in prison for real crimes which are second, third etc order effects of those regime edicts being enforced on a large scale. There’s also illegal slavery, a big chunk of which is due to immigration “laws” driving people into black and grey markets, and some of which is due to the outlawing of sex work.

  26. paulie

    All true, which just further highlights the absurdity of the claim that Lincoln and his fellow Whigs (err…Republicans) were motivated primarily by opposition to slavery.

    Lincoln wasn’t motivated by opposition to slavery; Davis et al, however, were motivated by a doomed last ditch effort to preserve it (doomed whether or not they won the war). It’s a mistake for libertarians to whitewash either the CSA regime or the Lincoln USA regime. Both were authoritarian regimes with anti-liberty reasons for going to war. Aside from the plainly stated causes for secession in their own words, there’s the facts as I laid out as to why the south would have won if they ended slavery themselves. Many European nations would have broken the blockade and jumped in on the side of the CSA, which they supported – they would have benefited from lower tariffs too, and a divided USA and CSA were in their interests – but slavery was the only thing stopping them; arming free black and ex-slave troops earlier in the war would have given the CSA a big boost; and it would have neutralized the propaganda value of the emancipation proclamation.

    The irrational last ditch effort to hang on to legal chattel slavery was not to appease poorer, non-slave owning whites. Places like (what became) West Virginia and Winston County, Alabama were poor, white and racist, with nary a slave or free black person anywhere, and not big supporters of the CSA’s fight (in fact, they tended to have union sympathies). It’s more likely that the irrational need to hang on to slavery as long as possible and at all costs had more to do with the slave owners’ nasty addiction to raping slaves continuously.

    Both the Lincoln and Davis regimes committed numerous war crimes and abuses of human rights.

    Lysander Spooner was, naturally, not a fan of either regime.

  27. Becky

    It is true the confederate battle flag started to be flown again in the south during the 50’s and 60’s when the federal government was trying to force all the racist southern democrats to desegregate their schools. It was put up as a symbol of resistance. Many early black civil rights leaders such ad Dr T.R.M. Howard who lived and fought for black rights in the deep south were in favor of “separate-but-equal” believing that forcing people to integrate was as bad as the current situation. The important issue was to promote equal voting rights, gun rights and equality under the law for all races. Not having a strong central government trying to tell the rest of the States what to do. America has lost its spirit of resistance and that, to me, is a very dangerous precursor of things to come.

  28. Andy Craig

    Even setting aside slavery itself (which you can’t really do), everything you could complain about Lincoln doing (most of which are legitimate complaints), the CSA did also, and in most cases did first, worse, and bigger.

    State’s rights? Try telling that to MO and KY, two states the Confederacy tried to invade and annex and impose pro-CSA governments on, even after they rejected secession. Or the rights of free states to not have slavery or enforce the fugitive slave act? That was one of their explicit complaints when the slave states seceded: that the federal government wasn’t forcing all the states to uphold slavery like their new CSA government would. Secession? Unless you’re West Virginia. Military conscription? Inflation? Trampling civil liberties? Coercing state governments? All done in abundance.

    All of that, on top of the fact that the Confederacy was explicitly, deliberately founded for the express purpose of protecting and preserving slavery in perpetuity, in direct response to the supposed “threat” of an anti-slavery party winning the federal election. A victory which probably would have happened sooner, without the 3/5 rule stuffing Congress on behalf of slave states. Hypothetical musing about how long slavery would have lasted is moot speculation- the CSA was founded. at the time. to preserve slavery, and saying it was really about tariffs or the rest requires ignoring the vast majority of the contemptuousness evidence.

    And more to the point, for the 100+ years after the death of the Confederacy, its symbols became the symbols of Jim Crow, segregation, lynch mobs, and every other effort to preserve slavery-by-another-name until “states rights” finally gave way to individual rights.

    Looking at that history, and not buying into Lost Cause revisionism straight out of The Birth Of A Nation, I see zero reason for libertarians to praise, defend, endorse, or celebrate the Confederacy and its symbols. I say this as a born-and-raised Southerner, but I wouldn’t be caught dead standing on stage with that damned flag, waxing poetic about the insane, authoritarian, sadistic cabal of tyrants that called themselves the government of the Confederate States of America.

    Even if you think that the majority in a state should be able to secede for any reason (which wasn’t the Jeffersonian idea of how that worked), the Confederacy fails even then. Between the enslaved population (a majority by itself in some states) and Unionist whites, it’s quite likely that secession never had majority support across the CSA, or at least in several of the states thereof. Suppression of Unionists and electoral fraud was rampant in early 1861. There’s very little on which to defend the notion, that the acts of secession were legitimate acts of the will of the people who lived in those states.

    Was Lincoln wrong about a lot, and did he commit a lot of crimes that set a lot of bad precedents? Yup, without any doubt. So did FDR, and Wilson. But you don’t see me waving a swastika banner or praising Kaiser Wilhelm as a hero to make that point.

  29. Don

    Despite Gov. Haley’s comments that the Confederate Flag will be lowered in a brief, respectful ceremony, I think we all know that that will not happen.
    The ” Community” let me say, will be present and will turn the event into a circus, much like the winning of and NBA Championship or the conviction of a police officer for defending their life against an attack by an assailant.
    It is a shame to say that this is the debacle that I foresee, but the ” Community” has regularly displayed this reaction and leaves me no reason to expect anything different here.

  30. Mark Seidenberg

    Baldwin states that Lincoln “did NOT free a single a single slave” is a statement that is not correct.
    Lincoln did free the slaves in the District of Columbia on February 1, 1862. I would like to
    know why Baldwin is not giving correct facts in the article about the slaves in the District of
    Columbia?

    The issue as I see it was troops from Northern States both Slave and Free did an act of aggression on the CSA. People in these Southern States were defending their states
    sovereignty and the dead should be honored with the Confederate Battle Flag from the
    top of the South Carolina State Capitol. I did not want to see the flag moved from atop
    of the Capitol in the first place.

    Lets look at the slave State of Delaware in 1861, the Lincoln administration wanted to
    free slaves in Delaware in circa 1871, by purchasing them in 1861 and getting manumitted
    in 1871 if they were under 35 years of age. This follows the J. Wellington Wimpy plan
    of providing funds now and receiving manumission in 1871, if the slave was still in Delaware.
    The effect would be those slaves that were under the age of 35 in 1861 may get freedom in
    1871, after an additional ten years as a slave if they were still within the State of Delaware.

    How many think those slaves would still have been in Delaware ten years latter. These slaves
    would have been in sold in an other slave state by 1871 and the slave owner would get funds
    up front. Lets look at how the slave state of New Jersey handled the plan to free its slaves.

    Why would a slave state in the North want to invade a slave state in the South. Does anyone
    think it was to end slavery in that Southern States and still keep the slaves in place in the
    Northern States such as New Jersey and Delaware?

    Paulie asked what Alaska had to do with the issue. Fact it was not until 1962 that the general
    government ended slavery in Alaska among the Alaskan Natives at the Federal Reserve of the
    Pribilof Islands, by paying them money for their labor working for the United States Government.

    It should also be noted that at Senate Hearings of February 1 & 2, 1973, it came out that at
    the same circa as the general government ended slavery in 1962 in Alaska, the Soviet Union
    was conducting slavery in an other part of the State of Alaska. Yes Alaska. There were four
    GULAG’s in the State of Alaska in 1962. That was because the Soviets committed an act of
    piracy on August 20, 1924 on the island Wrangell (aka New Columbia) in the Arctic Ocean.
    Three of the GULAG’s were on the banks of the Nasha (Our) River on Wrangell Island,
    Alaska.

    Wrangell Island was annexed by the United States Government as New Columbia Land on
    August 12, 1881 by 3rd Lt. William Edward Reynolds of the United States Revenue Marine
    ship Thomas Corwin on sua sponte order from Captain Calvin L. Hooper, USRM. [It
    should be noted that Reynolds became the first person to obtain the rank of Rear Admiral
    in the United States Coast Guard.] On 17 May 1884, Major Ezra W. Clark, Chief, United
    States Revenue Marine placed Wrangell Island in the District of Alaska. Therefore the
    Soviet GULAG’s at Wrangell Island were in the State of Alaska at the time because Alaska
    became a one of the several states on January 3, 1959.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman
    American Independent Party of California

  31. Becky

    I think we all agree that slavery is immoral and racism is for the feeble-minded. But my point, about the Confederate flag is that it represents, to many, the spirit of resisting the aggression of a strong central state. Too many, it represents a historic moment in America when the idea of our republic died. It was a very tragic part of our history for many reasons and should be remembered and discussed often. Removing a key symbol from view seems to be a way to preemptively chill discussions like the one we are having now. This only makes it that much harder when the next secession movement takes place (maybe b/c of the drug war, mandated health care, conscription…etc).

    Whereas, you could say the German (swastika) flag or American flag represents, to many, a large, top-down, powerful central government, with all the atrocities and violations of rights that have gone along with that.

    I personally would like to see no flags flown on taxpayer funded property. Return those funds from the people from whom it was stolen. But as long people allow their money to be taken for the purpose of putting up flags they should all get a vote on what flag(s) to put up. I support their right to do that and I will defend that right, even if I totally disagree with their underlying beliefs.

  32. Mark Seidenberg

    I still have the same question. Why is Dr. Baldwin not tell the reader that Lincoln did free slaves
    in the District of Columbia on February 1, 1862?

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  33. Mark Seidenberg

    Dr. Baldwin did raise the issue of General Cleburne. Cleburne wanted to end slavery, unlike
    Lincoln who just wanted to limit it to Union States. Cleburne also wrote the “pretense” of ending
    slavery was false on the part of Union supporters, and the aggression on the CSA was to
    “establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and deprive us
    of our rights and liberty”.

    That is why the Confederate Battle Flag is so important to be waived high, because it is a
    statement of liberty and State’s rights. It was and is a statement against a “more centralized
    form of government”.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  34. Andy Craig

    “But my point, about the Confederate flag is that it represents, to many, the spirit of resisting the aggression of a strong central state”

    And for many, it represents the centuries of racism, slavery, Jim Crow, and white supremacists chanting “states rights” in defense of violating individual rights. They aren’t wrong either, and in the particular context of the neoconfederate flag being flown from a place of honor at state capitols, the history is crystal clear: it was done as an official state protest against the civil rights movement and in favor state-mandated segregation, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The S.C. state rep was right when she pleaded “This issue is not getting better with age.”

    In different contexts, can the flag mean different things, some of them not really offensive? Sure. But a lot of the time the context is explicit violent racism. And the actual history of the Confederacy, isn’t worth venerating or honoring anyway.

    There are a lot of things preventing modern secession: namely that the idea has negligible serious support. If a state could secede if it wanted to, is a moot question when no state wants to by anything approaching a majority. Sure, it’s a common sarcastic retort and half-joking sentiment. But an actual proposition on the ballot in a state referendum to secede from the U.S.? Even assuming it was all legal and peaceful and the feds didn’t intervene? You’d be lucky if it got 15% of the vote in any state, and more likely less than 10% in most, most of that just contrarian protest sentiment.

    I know libertarians like to fantasize about Texas or New Hampshire or Jefferson or Superior seceding peacefully from the evil empire and becoming libertopia (it’s a compelling storyline!), but the reason it will never happen isn’t because the Feds would have to threaten to invade, it’s because nobody really wants to. Try telling people they’ll need border checkpoints and passports and visas to visit their relative across the state line. Try telling them that moving a couple hours away to work in the big city will now requiring asking permission from the INS. Try telling them that their access to national markets and goods and services and legal reciprocity will be severed. That they’d lose any 4th Amendment rights in crossing the new border. All the hassles and complications of suddenly erecting a new international border between them and the other 49 states. And then tell them they should do this to increase their freedom, when it isn’t even clear that the politicians who run their state would be any better for freedom if more unrestrained.

    It would go nowhere (outside of *maybe* AK & HI, and probably not even there), which is why it won’t even get that far and trying to push it is a distraction from real measures- including serious invocation of still-extant and usable states rights- that can increase freedom and reduce big, centralized, oppressive government. As several states have already demonstrated with drug laws, and others with asset forfeiture laws, and others with 4th amendment violations, there’s nothing compelling the states to assist in enforcement of bad federal laws. That’s a more potent and useful weapon, than empty symbolic “nullification” bills or hollow threats of secession.

  35. Mark Seidenberg

    Andy get real. Back in 1968 I was a student at San Francisco State College. I was employed
    by the State of California to monitor the Black Studies Program. The first in the United States.
    I reported directly to Dr. Max Rafferty who was the Superintendent of Public Instruction for
    the State of California.

    After I read about the nine persons murdered in Charleston, SC. The first thoughts in my mind
    after thinking about the issue was Denmark “Telemague” Vesey and the “slave insurrection”
    in Charleston in 1822. I was placed in the classes to view what was going on at the time.
    The problem was not just in the Black Studies classes it was also in other departments. They
    had classes also in “Urban Warfare” at S.F. State in the Sociology Department which I sat in
    the next year (1969) as an employee of Dr. S. I. Hayakawa.

    What an insult to the memory of my friend Strom Thurman by placing a statue of Denmark
    Vesey near that of Thurman statute. I still remember having lunches with Senator Thurman
    over the years. One lunch I enjoyed was with also the then Senator of Nevada. We talked
    about the slavery in Alaska, which neither knew about until I briefed them. I even told Senator
    Thurman about the Wade Hampton Census Area as used in the 1980 census. He knew of
    General Wade Hampton III, but until I told him he did not know that a census area was named
    after Wade Hampton III in Alaska.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman
    American Independent Party of Califronia

  36. Andy Craig

    I have no idea what the rest of that was about, but if you’re going to claim to have been good close friends with a famous historical figure, it’s more credible if you get their name right.

  37. Mark Seidenberg

    Andy, The concept of the State of Jefferson is real.. The platform of the American Independent
    Party of California supports the creation of the State of Jefferson at the 2014 Convention in
    Sacramento.

    That is one reason AIP party registration is going up in the Northern California Counties, because AIP took a stand to support the State of Jefferson movement in California.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman
    American Independent Party of California.

  38. Mark Seidenberg

    Thank you for correcting my spelling it is Thurmond it was just a typo error in the spelling of the name.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman
    American Independent Party of California.

  39. Andy Craig

    The idea of the State of Jefferson is very real and does have some support. I wish them the best.

    The idea of that region seceding *from the US* is not the same thing.

  40. Andy

    Andy Craig said: “I know libertarians like to fantasize about Texas or New Hampshire or Jefferson or Superior seceding peacefully from the evil empire and becoming libertopia (it?s a compelling storyline!), but the reason it will never happen isn?t because the Feds would have to threaten to invade, it?s because nobody really wants to.”

    Most people don’t want to for two reasons:

    1) They have been propagandized in the government controlled education system and mainstream media that succession is illegal, even immoral, and just not something that is even a realistic option, or even desirable.

    2) A large percentage of the population is either on government welfare, work for the government, are retired from a government job and collect a pension, contract with the government, or make their living is some kind of government contrived racket.

    There are a lot of people in every state in this country that fit into categories #1 and/or #2, and this is why even bringing succession to a vote is not likely to happen.

    Given the reality of the situation in which we live, I think that the only real option for libertarians to achieve real freedom is to establish a Libertarian Zone somewhere, and given how far entrenched the present day USA is in the police state, establishing the Libertarian Zone outside of the borders of the USA just may be the best option.

    Read about my Libertarian Zone concept here:

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/

  41. Andy

    “Andy Craig

    July 10, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    The idea of the State of Jefferson is very real and does have some support. I wish them the best.”

    I am pretty sure it can’t happen without the consent of the California legislature, and I just do not see that happening. There are very few people in California who support the idea, outside of a small handful of people in the part of northern California where Jefferson would be located.

  42. Andy Craig

    You’re right about that, Andy, which is why I think it won’t happen. If there is enough persistent support for in the region, it isn’t unthinkable though. A lot more likely, it will be just continue to be a mostly-cultural vent for local frustration and regionalism. The Pacific Northwest’s Conch Republic.

  43. Mark Seidenberg

    Andy,

    Why do you think the State of Jefferson is a Pacific Northwest’s Conch Republic? The State of Jefferson is real and the American Independent Party of California supported the State of Jefferson movement at its convention in 2014.

    I know that Key West has Seidenberg Avenue in the Couch Republic so that is a plus.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  44. Andy

    “Mark Seidenberg

    July 10, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    Andy,

    Why do you think the State of Jefferson is a Pacific Northwest’s Conch Republic? The State of Jefferson is real and the American Independent Party of California supported the State of Jefferson movement at its convention in 2014.”

    I seriously doubt that there is enough support for it to make it happen.

  45. paulie

    Despite Gov. Haley’s comments that the Confederate Flag will be lowered in a brief, respectful ceremony, I think we all know that that will not happen.

    Why should I give a shit whether it is respectful or not?

    The ” Community” let me say,

    I think we all know what you really mean.

    will be present and will turn the event into a circus, much like the winning of and NBA Championship

    Because whites don’t ever have boisterous and sometimes rioting reactions to sporting events?

    or the conviction of a police officer for defending their life against an attack by an assailant.

    What century did that last happen in?

    It is a shame to say that this is the debacle that I foresee, but the ” Community” has regularly displayed this reaction and leaves me no reason to expect anything different here.

    Well, that’s mighty white of you, yessuh, massa.

  46. paulie

    I think we all agree that slavery is immoral and racism is for the feeble-minded. But my point, about the Confederate flag is that it represents, to many, the spirit of resisting the aggression of a strong central state.

    Using a symbol of one strong central state as a symbol of resistance to strong central states seems less than optimal. And while many of us do agree that racism is immoral, not everyone does. Take, for example, Don and his remarks about “the community” (maybe that should be commuNity with a capital N).

    Whereas, you could say the German (swastika) flag or American flag represents, to many, a large, top-down, powerful central government, with all the atrocities and violations of rights that have gone along with that.

    So does the CSA and any flag purporting to represent it.

  47. paulie

    I still have the same question. Why is Dr. Baldwin not tell the reader that Lincoln did free slaves
    in the District of Columbia on February 1, 1862?

    As far as I know he does not read IPR commets, so I don’t know why you would ask the same question more than once.

  48. paulie

    That is why the Confederate Battle Flag is so important to be waived high, because it is a
    statement of liberty and State’s rights.

    A symbol of liberty? Really?

    It was and is a statement against a “more centralized
    form of government”.

    Granted the CSA never existed in peacetime long enough to judge it to any significant extent, but it was itself rather centralized, so any such statement is muddled to say the very least; see Andy Craig @ 6:52 am for details.

  49. paulie

    What an insult to the memory of my friend Strom Thurman (sic) by placing a statue of Denmark
    Vesey near that of Thurman statute.

    There’s an insult in that, but in the opposite direction from what you think.

  50. Andy

    Here is an interesting part of American history that you rarely hear about, and that is that during the times of chattel slavery in the USA, there were actually free blacks, and that there were actually free blacks who owned black slaves.

    Free blacks who owned slaves

  51. paulie

    Here is an interesting part of American history that you rarely hear about, and that is that during the times of chattel slavery in the USA, there were actually free blacks, and that there were actually free blacks who owned black slaves.

    Not exactly a new revelation, and so what?

  52. Andy

    Here is an interesting story about a free black man in South Carolina who was slave owner and breeder:

    Black slave owner and breeder William Ellison

  53. Andy

    Glenn Beck did an interesting story about how the first legal slave owner in America was actually a free black man named Anthony Johnson. Prior to this, there were indentured servants, who were basically slaves, but they had to be set free after certain number of years. Well, there was a free black man named Anthony Johnson who had a black indentured servant. He was supposed to set the black indentured servant free after a certain number of years, but due to a court ruling, he was able to keep this black indentured servant as his slave for the rest of his life, and this was the start of “legal” permanent slavery in America.

    The First Slave Owner In America Anthony Johnson, A Black Man !!!

  54. paulie

    All of that, on top of the fact that the Confederacy was explicitly, deliberately founded for the express purpose of protecting and preserving slavery in perpetuity, in direct response to the supposed “threat” of an anti-slavery party winning the federal election. A victory which probably would have happened sooner, without the 3/5 rule stuffing Congress on behalf of slave states. Hypothetical musing about how long slavery would have lasted is moot speculation- the CSA was founded. at the time. to preserve slavery, and saying it was really about tariffs or the rest requires ignoring the vast majority of the contemptuousness evidence.

    Good point, and great comment overall. One nit:

    As for hypothetical musing about how long slavery would have lasted, I found it useful to point out that even though slavery was doomed whether they won or not, the CSA regime ensured its own loss and demise in an irrational last-ditch effort to preserve it. If the real bottom line issue for them had been tariffs or anything else except slavery, they could have won. This is proof positive – over and above words on paper – that slavery was more important to them than any other goal they may have had.

  55. Andy

    Another forgotten part of American history is that in early American history, there were actually white slaves, primarily from Ireland, but there were also lower class Scottish and English who were slaves in America. Some of the owners of the white slaves in America actually bred Irish slaves with black slaves because they wanted to create a mulatto slave class.

    After more black slaves were brought into America, white slavery ended up being phased out.

    The forgotten Irish Slaves. A St. Patricks day special.

  56. George Phillies

    States’ RIghts? That’s the mythical claim that states have the right to say that girls may not get abortions, African-Americans may not go to the good schools, wives may not vote or own property, and men may not own guns. States-Rights advocates are depraved enemies of liberty.

  57. Andy

    “George Phillies

    July 10, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    States’ RIghts? That’s the mythical claim that states have the right to say that girls may not get abortions, African-Americans may not go to the good schools, wives may not vote or own property, and men may not own guns. States-Rights advocates are depraved enemies of liberty.”

    Well, in a way yes, but in a way, no. A hardcore libertarian correctly points out that governments, national, state, or local, do not have any rights, but, going from limited government constitutional perspective, “states rights” is a legitimate method of decentralizing power from the national (aka-federal) government. Decentralization of power can be a very good thing, because it can stop a national government from gong too far, as in trampling over liberty. Now it is true that a state government can go too far as well when it comes to trampling over liberty, but it is better for a one or a few states to get out of hand than it is for the national government to go too far.

    Unfortunately, “states rights” has become too associated with racism in the minds of most people, because it has been used for that in the past, but this should not in any way invalidate the concept. States rights, also known as the 10th amendment to the Constitution, which says that all powers not granted to the national (aka-federal) government, are left to the state or to the people. Invoking the 10th amendment can be a very useful tool in blocking unconstitutional and tyrannical federal mandates on the states.

  58. Andy

    Knocking the 10th amendment, as in dismissing it as being nothing more than a tool for racists to engage in oppression, is like knocking the 2nd amendment, because some people use guns to commit crimes.

    Do some people use guns to commit crimes? Yes they do, but even so, the right to own and carry guns is an essential tool for having and maintaining a free society.

    The 10th amendment, which is where “states rights” come from, can also be used as a tool to protect liberty from a tyrannical and corrupt national (aka-federal) government, and this is true even though the “states rights” doctrine has been abused before.

  59. Andy Craig

    Even the 10th says rights are reserved to the states “or the people.”

    The anti-commandeering doctrine is very useful, and under-used. States remain responsible for pretty vast areas of government, including the most basic and fundamental criminal laws and services, and the vast majority of arrests. More power is wielded at the state level than people often appreciate. The real undermining of federalism there is through the congressional spending power, but even then states can refuse that funding and the strings attached. The main thing “states rights” are useful for, is the states right *not* to do something or harm somebody or have some particular law or actively assist in some federal over-reach. If states and localities had to be fiscally self-sustaining, we’d see more of that kind of diversity and resistance intended among the states.

    But when, more often than not, “states rights” is being (selectively) invoked to defend some anti-liberty state law, that violates individual rights and is argued to conflict with the federal constitution? I can pass on those sorts of “states rights”. Very few state laws are ruled unconstitutional by federal courts in the grand scheme of things, and it seems to me one part of the government telling another part of the government they can’t do something, is not a bad thing from a libertarian perspective. There are lots of ways we can, and do, and should have a relatively decentralized federal system, while still holding the states to a basic minimum floor of individual rights and constitutional obligations. And, regardless of whether or not that’s a good idea, it is the system put in place by the 14th Amendment, as well some of the provisions of the original Constitution.

  60. Andy

    Here is a video about a modern day black man who is a son of Confederate Veterans who dresses up in a grey Confederate Army uniform and marches around the country waving a Confederate flag.

    Black Confederate

  61. Andy

    After the Civil War, a group of Confederates actually left the country and moved to Brazil. Their ancestors are still there today, and they still celebrate American Southern culture, and they wave Confederate flags.

    Confederates in Brazil

  62. langa

    Lincoln wasn’t motivated by opposition to slavery; Davis et al, however, were motivated by a doomed last ditch effort to preserve it (doomed whether or not they won the war).

    I think there was a mixture of motivations on both sides, but I would agree that slavery was a much more important factor for the Confederacy than the Union. But I also maintain that both sides played up the importance of slavery for rhetorical effect, and to drum up public support.

    It’s a mistake for libertarians to whitewash either the CSA regime or the Lincoln USA regime. Both were authoritarian regimes with anti-liberty reasons for going to war.

    I totally agree.

  63. langa

    …I see zero reason for libertarians to praise, defend, endorse, or celebrate the Confederacy and its symbols.

    Nor do I (except, of course, for defending the rights of private property owners to display whatever symbols they choose on their own property).

    However, I also see zero reason for libertarians to propagate the myth that Lincoln’s actions were justified by the necessity of eliminating slavery. This argument is flawed on many levels. Even if one accepts that the ends justify the means (which I believe is extremely problematic from a libertarian standpoint), there are still two problems. First, ending slavery was not the end that Lincoln was pursuing, and second, the means he used were in no way necessary to achieve that end (as Paulie has pointed out).

  64. Andy

    “Bondurant

    July 11, 2015 at 3:43 am

    Badstreet USA will never be the same.”

    LOL!

  65. Andy

    While it is true that the Confederate States of America wanted to preserve slavery within the Confederacy, they actually wanted to stop the importation of more slaves into the Confederacy, and the Confederate Constitution went so far as to ban the importation of slaves from outside of the Confederacy.

    Confederate Constitution

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

    “Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

    (2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy”

  66. NewFederalist

    Okay, okay… since the Confederate flag is such a big deal and all and this thread has gone off topic on other tangents… I have a BURNING yes I say again BURNING question. Why is it the Confederate States of America rather than the Confederated States of America? With all the lawyers and PhDs in English that read this thread it shouldn’t be too hard to answer. Enquiring minds (regardless of how under educated) MUST know! Thanx!

  67. Mark Seidenberg

    Andy,

    You note Section 9 (2), could it be that it was an inducement for Delaware a slave state to
    join the CSA? If the plan was the 10 year plan for slaves under 35 years of age that Lincoln
    favored, could it be that Delaware after receiving the compensation for the 1871 manumission
    to join the CSA?

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  68. NewFederalist

    “Why is it the Confederate States of America rather than the Confederated States of America?”

    No takers?

  69. langa

    Why is it the Confederate States of America rather than the Confederated States of America?

    I don’t know. The rules of grammar were a bit different back then. For example, they Seemed to capitalize Words for No good Reason.

  70. Andy

    Kid Rock refuses to stop using the Confederate flag at concerts. Good for Kid Rock for not giving into this “PC” idiocy.

    https://www.yahoo.com/music/s/kid-rock-tells-protestors-kiss-ass-over-confederate-180700007-rolling-stone.html

    “Although Kid Rock was born and raised in Michigan, a Union state during the Civil War, the rocker has adopted the Confederate flag in recent years to highlight his Rebel Soul, the name of his 2012 album. In recent years, Rock has retreated to his estate in rural Alabama. Rock also toured extensively with Lynyrd Skynyrd, another – albeit Southern – act that made frequent use of the Confederate flag.

    As Fox News points out, Kid Rock aligns himself with the Southern pride connotations of the flag and not its racial implications, since Rock’s son Robert Ritchie Jr., is biracial, and as of December 2014, the First Kiss singer also has biracial grandchildren.”

  71. Robert Capozzi

    A, what you call “idiocy” is on the heels of the world seeing pics of Dylann Roof with the Confederate flag. That’s quite an image to overlook.

  72. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi

    July 11, 2015 at 6:19 pm

    A, what you call “idiocy” is on the heels of the world seeing pics of Dylann Roof with the Confederate flag. That’s quite an image to overlook.”

    Yes, it is idiocy, and I’ve got no respect for the people pushing this irrational, emotion driven nonsense.

    Even if you believe the official story about the Charleston church shooting (which I am highly skeptical of), the fact of the matter is that the Confederate flag did not jump off of a flag pole and kill anyone. Blaming the flag is just as irrational as blaming the gun, or blaming the car that Dylan Root drove, or blaming the internet because Dylan Root supposedly surfed the internet and found racist websites.

    The Confederate flag in question at the South Carolina State Capitol was in the yard on a Confederate Veterans Memorial Statue. Lots of people drive by there every day. If the site of the flag caused people to kill people, then there’d be a lot more killings because of it.

    The fact of the matter is that the Confederate flag DID NOT KILL ANYONE. Shifting the blame to an inanimate object removes individual guilt and personal responsibility.

    I used to live in South Carolina. I lived there for several years. I also vacationed there several times, and I was in South Carolina for a couple of months a couple of years ago, after not having been there for several years. It is not like you see Confederate flags all over the place there. You’ll see them at Civil War historic sites and markers/memorials, and yeah, you’ll sometimes see somebody with a Confederate flag, or a bumper sticker or t-shirt or hat or something like that with a Confederate flag on it, but it is not like everywhere you go you see Confederate flags. You’ll see American flags there more than you’ll see Confederate flags, just like anywhere else in this country.

    I’ve been to the 48 contiguous states, and I’ve spent lots of time in all parts of the contiguous 48, including lots of time in the former Confederate states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas. Contrary to what some may believe, it is not as though everyone walks around with Confederate flags, nor is everyone a racist, and people who have Confederate flags are not necessarily racist either. Are there any people with Confederate flags who are racist? Sure, but just having a Confederate flag does not automatically mean that one is a racist. Most people who have Confederate flags see them as a symbol of regional pride, or something that represents their heritage, or they just think that it looks cool.

    When I was in South Carolina a couple of years ago, I passed by that Civil War Memorial that had that Confederate flag flying that was on the South Carolina State Capitol grounds, which we have heard so much about in the media, and guess what, I managed to look at it, and I did not feel compelled to kill any black people. Myself, and thousands of other people passed by that flag every day, and nobody picked up a gun and walked into a church frequented by black people and started blowing them away.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with displaying, or flying a Confederate flag at historic sites/markers/memorials, even if the historic site/marker/memorial is on public property (ie-government property), and if a private individual wants to fly a Confederate flag, or have a picture of one on a t-shirt or hat or bumper sticker, or make one into a beach towel, or a bikini, that’s called freedom of expression, and that’s their right.

  73. Robert Capozzi

    a: the fact of the matter is that the Confederate flag did not jump off of a flag pole and kill anyone.

    me: Right. So stipulated. I don’t believe anyone is suggesting this, so I’m gonna throw a penalty flag for a straw-man violation! 😉

    Of course individuals have a right to flag the Rebel Flag. But, as Roof shows, many of those who fly it are doing so for racist reasons. Not everyone who does fly it is racist, of course.

    As the first state government that attempted to “secede” to maintain slavery, it’s really bad form for the state of SC to continue to fly that symbol (for many) of slavery and racism. That point became obvious to the current government in SC, and they finally saw the error of their ways.

    Gotta ask: What’s the “real story” on the Charleston church shootings?

  74. paulie

    I think there was a mixture of motivations on both sides, but I would agree that slavery was a much more important factor for the Confederacy than the Union. But I also maintain that both sides played up the importance of slavery for rhetorical effect, and to drum up public support.

    See the county vote map. Areas of the south that had a preponderance of poorer, non-slave owning whites were not big fans of secession. That probably means that poorer, non-slave owning whites in the other counties were not nearly as pro-secession as actual slave owners were. Slave owners were a minority of whites, but disproportionately represented among those who actually voted, and especially among legislators. Voting wasn’t secret then, so the wealthier whites had various economic means of pressure to get less wealthy whites to vote for secession. However, counties which had relatively few slave owners tended to vote against secession, so I think that’s evidence that most non-slave owners in general weren’t too thrilled with the idea or with the likelihood of war coming as a result.

  75. paulie

    …I see zero reason for libertarians to praise, defend, endorse, or celebrate the Confederacy and its symbols.

    Nor do I (except, of course, for defending the rights of private property owners to display whatever symbols they choose on their own property).

    Having a right and being right are two different things. For example, I support the right of neo-nazis to parade around in their nazi fetish uniforms, but that doesn’t mean I think they are right, much less that I would put one on and march with them (because, you know, FDR sucked, just like that SOB Lincoln…which, no argument, he did).

  76. paulie

    While it is true that the Confederate States of America wanted to preserve slavery within the Confederacy, they actually wanted to stop the importation of more slaves into the Confederacy, and the Confederate Constitution went so far as to ban the importation of slaves from outside of the Confederacy.

    Importing more slaves would have decreased the value of the slaves that were already there. Suppose you were a slave-breeding aristocrat, you wouldn’t want to lower the value of your prized stud and broodmare slaves by bringing in new ones.

    Also, the slave owning class was deathly afraid of slave insurrections, so they did not want to be too vastly outnumbered.

  77. paulie

    What we know as the Confederate flag of today was just one of several flags they used.

    Actually, as discussed above, it was none of the several flags they used. The closest thing that the actual CSA had to the neoconfederate flag was a square (not rectangular) flag of the same design which was the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, one of several battle flags. It was also at one point the confederate naval jack. But again, it was square, unlike the neoconfederate flag used today. The square version was also incorporated into the upper left corner of the latter two conferate national flags, the stainless banner and the blood stained banner. As far as I have been able to determine the neoconferederate flag in its present form was never used anywhere until after the war.

  78. paulie

    Why is it the Confederate States of America rather than the Confederated States of America?

    Wikipedia:
    On March 11, 1861, the Confederate Constitution of seven state signatories—South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas— replaced the February 7 provisional Confederated States constitution with one stating in its preamble a desire for a “permanent federal government”.

  79. paulie

    “Although Kid Rock was born and raised in Michigan, a Union state during the Civil War, the rocker has adopted the Confederate flag in recent years …

    Much like some other Michiganders, such as the band calling themselves the Angry Aryans.

  80. paulie

    The Confederate flag in question at the South Carolina State Capitol was in the yard on a Confederate Veterans Memorial Statue.

    And now it is in the Capitol history museum where it belongs.

  81. paulie

    I’ve been to the 48 contiguous states, and I’ve spent lots of time in all parts of the contiguous 48, including lots of time in the former Confederate states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas. Contrary to what some may believe, it is not as though everyone walks around with Confederate flags,

    I have too. Oddly enough, where I have seen it most is not here in the deep south, but in the area that was the border states and union areas such as West Virginia, southern parts of Indiana, Illinois and Ohio, parts of Missouri and Kentucky.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with displaying, or flying a Confederate flag at historic sites/markers/memorials, even if the historic site/marker/memorial is on public property (ie-government property),

    Depends on the type of government property. A state capitol and a museum are two different kinds.

    and if a private individual wants to fly a Confederate flag, or have a picture of one on a t-shirt or hat or bumper sticker, or make one into a beach towel, or a bikini, that’s called freedom of expression, and that’s their right.

    Is there a reason you keep repeating this when no one here has said otherwise?

  82. paulie

    the fact of the matter is that the Confederate flag did not jump off of a flag pole and kill anyone.

    Neither did the flag of the third reich. I still wouldn’t want it flown at, say, the state capitol or equivalent in Bavaria.

  83. langa

    See the county vote map. Areas of the south that had a preponderance of poorer, non-slave owning whites were not big fans of secession. That probably means that poorer, non-slave owning whites in the other counties were not nearly as pro-secession as actual slave owners were.

    All the more reason why the plantation owners needed to sell them on it, by appealing to their sense of racial pride. Do you really think these poor whites, who almost certainly had very little (if any) formal education, would have been more easily persuaded by scholarly lectures about the virtues of free trade?

  84. langa

    Having a right and being right are two different things. For example, I support the right of neo-nazis to parade around in their nazi fetish uniforms, but that doesn’t mean I think they are right, much less that I would put one on and march with them (because, you know, FDR sucked, just like that SOB Lincoln…which, no argument, he did).

    I understand this distinction, and I agree it’s an important one. I’m not sure what I have said that would make you think otherwise. I was merely pointing out that if some government were to pass a law banning the displaying of the flag (or any symbol) on private property (including so-called “public places” like restaurants and bars), libertarians should oppose such a law. I think we can certainly do that without actually endorsing the symbol in question.

    As for me, I think the only things I have ever owned that were in any way related to the CSA battle flag (or whatever you want to call it) is some “Dukes of Hazzard” merchandise. I will say that I am a huge fan of that show, although my affinity for it has far more to do with its strongly libertarian message than the “Southern pride” aspect of the show. In fact, even though I grew up in a very small Georgia town that was, in some ways, similar to the one on the show, I never really cared much for the whole “redneck” culture, with the country music, the cowboy hats, and so forth. In fact, when I was in high school, I once broke up with a girl I was dating because we couldn’t agree on music — she wanted to listen to Garth Brooks, while I preferred Dr. Dre. 🙂

  85. Andy

    “paulie

    July 11, 2015 at 10:46 pm

    ‘the fact of the matter is that the Confederate flag did not jump off of a flag pole and kill anyone.’

    Neither did the flag of the third reich. I still wouldn’t want it flown at, say, the state capitol or equivalent in Bavaria.”

    First off, comparing the Third Reich to the Confederate States of America is not a valid comparison at all.

    Second of all, it was a historic marker in the freaking yard of the Capitol. If you go on tours of Capitol buildings and similar places you’ll probably find all kinds of things that might offend somebody.

    There are Vietnam Memorials in various places around the country. This might offend Vietnamese Americans, Vietnamese immigrants, and Vietnamese tourists. Many Americans today recognize that the Vietnam War was unconstitutional and unnecessary. So should Vietnam War Memorials be torn down? How about Korean War Memorials?

    How about the War of 1812?

    How about the French and Indian War? Might offend the French or Americans with French ancestors, and might offend American Indians.

  86. Andy

    RedsilverJ, who is a black guy, points out the absurdity in removing the Confederate flag over a government staged false flag event.

    South Carolina Approves Bill Removing Confederate Flag Over Hoax (Redsilverj)

  87. Andy

    Great video from RedsilverJ.

    Charleston Shooting Hoax Ultimate Exposed (Redsilverj)

  88. Robert Capozzi

    a, OK. Yes, I see the false-flag charges are starting to pop up. Although they seem more about 2A then about the Rebel Flag.

    I wonder if many/most/all of the school massacres over the years were also false flags, all part of a massive gun-grabbing plot. What say you?

  89. Andy Craig

    “First off, comparing the Third Reich to the Confederate States of America is not a valid comparison at all.”

    Why not? I see this hand-wavingly assumed, but I’ve yet to hear a convincing case for it.

    “Second of all, it was a historic marker in the freaking yard of the Capitol. If you go on tours of Capitol buildings and similar places you’ll probably find all kinds of things that might offend somebody.”

    ‘Might offend somebody’? Sure, you can find that nebulous standard met anywhere. Actually offensive to a large and substantial chunk of the state’s population, whom the flag was originally placed on the statehouse grounds to express the state’s desired subjugation of? Not so much.

    “There are Vietnam Memorials in various places around the country. This might offend Vietnamese Americans, Vietnamese immigrants, and Vietnamese tourists. Many Americans today recognize that the Vietnam War was unconstitutional and unnecessary. So should Vietnam War Memorials be torn down? How about Korean War Memorials?”

    How many Vietnam or Korean War memorials in the United States fly the Viet Cong or PDRK flags? I’m guessing not many. And if somebody proposed to build a monument (on public grounds and at taxpayer expense) to VC or PDRK soldiers, designed to glorify them and their cause and their governments, I’m willing to bet there would be some objections.

    “false flag”

    *sigh*

  90. Mark Seidenberg

    Back to Alaska. First M.J. Meyers who ran for Governor of Alaska in 2014 is now running for
    POTUS in 2016 in California within the American Independent Party primary election. He will
    also seek the nomination from the National Constitution Party in all other states.

    According to KRBD FM radio station on June 25, 2015 news. President Peterson of the Tlinget Haida Council stated that: “It’s time to take down our Confederate Flag”. This was a reaction to the national call to remove the Confederate Battle Flag. The Tlinget Indians practiced slavery in Alaska long after Alaska became a Department of the United States Government in 1868.

    As we know slavery did not end in Alaska until 1962 (except for on the Wrangell Island GULAG’s). Unlike the slave owners in the District of Columbia, the Tlinget Indians did not get any United States funds for there freed slaves.

    At the Alaska State Museum there is a totem pole make for President Abraham Lincoln, It
    was made by the Tlinget Indians of Alaska to “shame President Lincoln”, because they were
    told he was the “Boston Man” (a term the Alaska Natives call persons from the United States
    ln the mid to late 19th century) was the man that freed their slaves. The totem of Lincoln was
    made to shame Lincoln for take slaves away from Alaskan Natives with out paying them in
    blankets for that taking.

    The Confederate Battle Flag is used by Alaska Native people as a note of shame on the general government of the United States at the present time. It is interesting that President
    Peterson is now calling for a boycott of FED-EX because, they are a sponsor of the Washington
    Redskins Football team.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman
    American Independent Party of California

  91. Mark Seidenberg

    President Richard J. “Ch’aa Yaa Eesh” Peterson is Tlingit from the Kaagwaantaan Clan. The
    Tlingit Indians have never signed a peace treaty with the United States and have been at war
    with the United States Government since 1856. The first battle took place at Port Gamble,
    Washington in 1856. Kake Indian travel more than 1,000 miles to battle the United States
    in 1857. They beheaded Col. Ebey after his murder on Whimbey Island, Washington.

    See this article by Ron Newberry of the Whimbey News-Times of 21 August 2014 at 9:21 a.m.
    It is entitled “KAKE TRIBAL MEMBERS VISIT EBEY 157 YEARS AFTER DEATH THAT SHOOK
    REGION”

    The use of the Confederate Battle Flag is used by the Tlingit Indians today, because of the
    old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. It was in 1856 that the U.S. Navy killed 27
    Tlingit Indians of the Kake Tribe (Tlingit Indians of then Russian America later to become
    Alaska) at Port Gamble, Washington. President Peterson on June 25, 2015 called for the
    Tlingit Haida Indian to stop waving the Confederate Battle Flag on June 25, 2015.

    We will see if these Indian follow the call of an other type Indian, viz., Nikki Haley, Governor
    of South Carolina.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman
    American Independent Party of California

  92. Mark Seidenberg

    I am sorry for a spelling error. It is “M. R. Myers” who is now running for POTUS from Alaska.
    M. R. Myers ran for Governor of Alaska in 2014 on the Constitution Party ticket.

    I note that the link I gave to the article by Ron Newberry did not appear in the above post.
    Those readers with this interest can find it at:

    www. whidbeynewstimes.com/community/27191039.html

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman,
    American Independent Party of California

  93. Mark Seidenberg

    According to THE CHINOOK BOOK by El Comanco (1913, Seattle, R. L. Davis Printing Comp),
    the Indians leave out the “t” and “o” following to “n” so it would be “Bos’n Man” when referring
    to a White Men from the United States visiting the Haida people. {page 14}. That was what they
    called the U.S. Navy men that took away their slaves in Alaska.

    The Washington Islands just to the South of Alaska, was the remainder of Michigan Territory
    following the Treaty of 1818. It was not added to Alaska by Ezra W. Clark on 17 May 1884,
    when Forrester Island was added to Alaska on that date. The Washington Islands which were the territory of the Haida people are still part of the remainder of the Territory of Michigan.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman
    American Independent Party of California

  94. Mark Seidenberg

    My suggestion is the readers of this thread read the article by William L. “Shgunai” Paul a
    Tlingit Attorney from Tongass Village, Alaska entitled “The Real Story of The Lincoln Totem”
    Alaska Journal, Summer 1971, pp 2 – 16.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman
    American Indepandent Party of California

  95. NewFederalist

    “I am sorry for a spelling error. It is “M. R. Myers” who is now running for POTUS from Alaska.
    M. R. Myers ran for Governor of Alaska in 2014 on the Constitution Party ticket. ” – Mark Seidenberg

    I thought his name was J.R. Myers.

  96. Mark Seidenberg

    NewFederalist

    Thank you for the post. I looked back at my incoming e-mail it was from “J. R. Myers” of Alaska.
    He is running for POTUS in 2016.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman
    American Independent Party of California

  97. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi

    July 12, 2015 at 6:13 am

    a, OK. Yes, I see the false-flag charges are starting to pop up. Although they seem more about 2A then about the Rebel Flag.

    I wonder if many/most/all of the school massacres over the years were also false flags, all part of a massive gun-grabbing plot. What say you?”

    I would say that some of them are, but a lot of others were just gang and/or drug dealer related, and in some cases, there could be just a random nut.

    If you research Sandy Hook, it is shady as hell.

  98. Andy

    This video brings up something that I’ve been thinking as well, and that is that the shooting incident, which all of the evidence points to it being another false flag, and the “controversy” about the Confederate flag in the aftermath, is really a veiled attack against the 2nd amendment (right to keep and bear arms), the 10th amendment (powers not granted to the federal government being left to the states or the people), and the concept of secession.

    Charleston Hoax Confederate Flag Agenda is About Military Occupation of the South

  99. Andy

    So what is worse, a flag from the Confederate States of America, or flags from the USSR and the People’s Republic of China? What is more American, the CSA, or the USSR and Red China? What was/is worse, the CSA, or the USSR and Red China?

    Amazon is another company that has announced that they are discontinuing sales of the Confederate flag, but they still sell flags from the USSR and communist China.

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ussr+flag

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=chinese+flag

  100. Robert Capozzi

    Andy, private businesses can do what they like in terms of products they offer. Not selling the Rebel Flag feels like a bit of an overreaction to me, or possibly a calculated PR ploy.

    All 3 flags represent severely dysfunctional thinking to me. Since I live in the US, for me the Rebel Flag evokes more negative feelings, since it represents an attempt by slavers to keep their slaves.

  101. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi

    July 13, 2015 at 4:39 am

    Andy, private businesses can do what they like in terms of products they offer. Not selling the Rebel Flag feels like a bit of an overreaction to me, or possibly a calculated PR ploy.”

    Sure, a business can decided whether or not to sell a product, but it does not mean that I have to respect these decisions.

    What really irks me even more is that the government is taking Confederate flags out of National historic sites and they are even talking about taking it out of military graveyards.

    “All 3 flags represent severely dysfunctional thinking to me. Since I live in the US, for me the Rebel Flag evokes more negative feelings, since it represents an attempt by slavers to keep their slaves.”

    Slavery was only part of the story, and like I mentioned above, while the Confederate Constitution did preserve slavery (which was not a good thing), it did prohibit the importation of more slaves into the Confederacy (which was a good thing). Also, there were actually free blacks who lived in the Confederate states, both before and during the war.

    I am in no way condoning slavery, but the Confederate states were not trying to commit genocide or engage in mass killings. It is completely unfair to compare the Confederate States of America to communist Russia or communist China or Nazi Germany. The Confederate States of America were not trying to take over the USA, they were trying to secede from it. It is quite possible that if different people had been elected to office, that a peaceful resolution would have been found, and the South never would have seceded. Even after seceding, there was really no reason for the war. Remember, Lincoln said that his goal was to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves, and that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves he’d do it.

    Are there reasons to knock the Confederate flag? Sure, but there are actually more reasons to knock the American flag. Slavery existed longer under the American flag than the Confederate flag. Slave ships flew the American flag, but not the Confederate flag. Lots of American Indians were run off of their land and murdered under the American flag. There have been multiple illegal and immoral wars fought under the American flag. More people have likely been put in jail or prison for victimless crimes under the American flag than any other flag in history.

    So it strikes me as hypocritical for people to say that the Confederate flag should be taken down, without saying the same thing about the American flag.

    It strikes me as being completely ridiculous to remove the Confederate flag from historic sites/markers/memorials. Are we supposed to bury history because somebody might have their feelings hurt?

    I really think that a lot of this controversy about the Confederate flag has to do with so many people being ignorant about history. What about the flags of black nations who have ancestors who sold their fellow blacks into slavery to the white man in the first place? How about the fact that there were at one time white slaves in America? How about the fact that there actually were blacks who were set free in pre-Civil War America, including in the South, and how about the fact that some of them owned black slaves? Slavery is a horrible thing, but how about the fact that it has been practiced by every culture on the planet at one time, and that it still exists in the world today? How about the fact that there was slavery in Northern states, but some of them ended slavery earlier because they did not have as great as a need for slaves as the Southern states did (remember, no air conditioning or farm machinery back then, and it gets really freaking hot in the South in the summer)? How about the fact that not everyone in the South owned slaves? How about the fact that even after some Northern states had ended slavery, they still had slave ships come in and out of their docks? How about the fact that there were slave states that were a part of the Union during the Civil War, and that there were slave owners in these states that held on to their slaves until the 13th amendment was passed after the war? What about all of the war crimes committed against the South by the Union during the war?

    This talk of removing the Confederate flag without even acknowledging the sins committed under the American flag reminds me of the expression, “People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.”

  102. Andy

    “Even after seceding, there was really no reason for the war. Remember, Lincoln said that his goal was to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves, and that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves he’d do it. ”

    Several libertarians have pointed out if people in the North were concerned with freeing the slaves, it would have been far cheaper for them to just raise money and purchase them and set them free than it was to wage a war. Chattel slavery ended in other countries around the world without a war. It likely would have ended here as well even if the war had not been fought.

  103. Andy

    This video brings up a lot of good points.

    The Confederate Flag Ban Should Scare You (NEW WORLD ORDER)

  104. Andy Craig

    “I am in no way condoning slavery, but…”

    “Slavery is a horrible thing, but….”

    Hmmm…..

    “…but the Confederate states were not trying to commit genocide or engage in mass killings.”

    African slavery as practiced in the South did involve a lot of killings, and it would clearly qualify as “genocide” under any modern definition of the term.

    “How about the fact that not everyone in the South owned slaves?”

    So what? Nobody is talking about ‘everyone in the South’ – they’re talking about the Confederacy. They aren’t the same thing.

    “it did prohibit the importation of more slaves into the Confederacy (which was a good thing).”

    As was already explained by paulie, this was something the slavers wanted- think of it as protectionism for slave owners. But it should also be noted, that the importation of more slaves had been banned in the U.S. since 1808, under the original U.S. Constitution which explicitly empowered Congress to ban it starting that year.

    By the 1860s, the transatlantic slave trade was already illegal under international law, akin to piracy and categorized as a hostis humani generis crime. (famously enforced by the Royal Navy for decades at that point). It isn’t like the CSA went out of their way to ban it out of humanitarian or anti-slavery impulse, they really didn’t have a choice even if they had wanted to.

    “This talk of removing the Confederate flag without even acknowledging the sins committed under the American flag reminds me of the expression.”

    The difference is, the American flag actually has redeeming qualities to what it symbolizes. I’m not into flag-worship in general, but the American flag didn’t just fly over slavery, it flew over abolition. It didn’t just fly over Jim Crow, it flew over the Civil Rights movement. It didn’t just fly over unjust wars and imperial colonies, it has also flown over the Bill of Rights and the triumph of classical liberalism and all the other good things people associate with it.

    The Confederate flag (like the Nazi flag) has no such redeeming qualities. It represents the effort to preserve slavery (including Jim Crow), and all of the other abuses of the Confederacy, a government which has nothing to recommend itself from either a libertarian perspective, or a just plain human perspective.

    “What about all of the war crimes committed against the South by the Union during the war?”

    What about the bombing of Dresden? Would flying the swastika be a legitimate way to commemorate or protest that war crime? Why not?

    Again, it’s entirely possible to criticize and condemn Lincoln and his government’s crimes, without cheering the flag of the Confederacy.

    “It strikes me as being completely ridiculous to remove the Confederate flag from historic sites/markers/memorials. Are we supposed to bury history because somebody might have their feelings hurt?”

    Speaking of false flags- if that’s really the concern than those sites should fly one of the actual historical Confederate flags, not the post-war neoconfederate banner popularized by the Klan.

  105. Robert Capozzi

    a: So it strikes me as hypocritical for people to say that the Confederate flag should be taken down, without saying the same thing about the American flag.

    me: I understand your point. The difference is that as the American Experiment was unfolding, some were pushing to end slavery while the CSA explicitly was designed to maintain slavery. The same cannot be said of the USA, which — yes — did allow for slavery, but that was not the principal reason for the US’s founding.

    a: It strikes me as being completely ridiculous to remove the Confederate flag from historic sites/markers/memorials. Are we supposed to bury history because somebody might have their feelings hurt?

    me: No. But it surely should not fly at state capitols. There may well be some overreaction, but since it’s taken decades to remove this symbol of racism and slavery, an overreaction is quite understandable.

  106. paulie

    All the more reason why the plantation owners needed to sell them on it, by appealing to their sense of racial pride. Do you really think these poor whites, who almost certainly had very little (if any) formal education, would have been more easily persuaded by scholarly lectures about the virtues of free trade?

    Poor whites had no stake in preserving slavery. Naturally, they weren’t very eager to compete against more freed blacks in the market for manual field and domestic labor. On the other hand, they would have probably been happy if the slaves were freed and shipped to Africa, which just so happened to be Lincoln’s preferred solution as well. That would have forced the plantation owners to pay for the jobs that slaves had been doing, thus opening up more jobs for poor whites. I think this is a better explanation for the votes going against secession in portions of the southern states that had few slaveowners; if they were big fans of keeping slavery in place they would have supported secession, and there wouldn’t have been a state of West Virginia today, among other things.

  107. paulie

    Having a right and being right are two different things. For example, I support the right of neo-nazis to parade around in their nazi fetish uniforms, but that doesn’t mean I think they are right, much less that I would put one on and march with them (because, you know, FDR sucked, just like that SOB Lincoln…which, no argument, he did).

    I understand this distinction, and I agree it’s an important one. I’m not sure what I have said that would make you think otherwise.

    Because the response to

    …I see zero reason for libertarians to praise, defend, endorse, or celebrate the Confederacy and its symbols.

    was

    Nor do I (except, of course, for defending the rights of private property owners to display whatever symbols they choose on their own property).

    We can do that without praising, defending, endorsing, or celebrating the Confederacy and its symbols, just as we can with, say, nazi Germany and its symbols, or the USSR, or whatever else.

    There’s no “except” in there.

    I was merely pointing out that if some government were to pass a law banning the displaying of the flag (or any symbol) on private property (including so-called “public places” like restaurants and bars), libertarians should oppose such a law. I think we can certainly do that without actually endorsing the symbol in question.

    I agree. However, no one here has proposed supporting any such ban, and the only discussion of any hypothetical ban on confederate symbols on private property in this thread has been negative, including from the people who are saying we should not celebrate confederate symbols ourselves. Nor is there any serious proposal to do so in the larger public discussion currently. So why does that distrction keep getting brought up every time one of us says something like “…I see zero reason for libertarians to praise, defend, endorse, or celebrate the Confederacy and its symbols”?

    In fact, even though I grew up in a very small Georgia town that was, in some ways, similar to the one on the show, I never really cared much for the whole “redneck” culture, with the country music, the cowboy hats, and so forth.

    I didn’t move to the south until I was 19, and even then it was to a college town, but I actually like country music (among many other kinds, including hip hop). However, that is not the same thing as being a fan of the confederacy, any more than it makes me a fan of Toby Keith’s warmongering, or any more than listening to Public Enemy makes me a fan of Farakhan, etc.

  108. Andy

    I just found a song on YouTube that has lyrics that talk about why a lot of Southerns like the Confederate flag, and also how that does not make them racists (they even have a black guy in the group).

    Friends Of All Kinds – Moccasin Creek (Featuring: Bruce Kulick and Twan D)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *