Huck sure seems to have the Johnny Reb vote all wrapped up.

Who has Boss Hog endorsed?

"You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag," Huckabee told supporters in Myrtle Beach, S.C. "In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do."

That's the best line from a Republican politico that I have heard in a very, very long time.

I am going to re-register as a Republican with Oregon's late primary. I doubt I will have a say in who the Dem candidate is, but if the Republican primary is close going into the late states, I am voting for the Huckster.........

No matter what, with Huck in the General election, it will be a fucking HOOT!!!!

Many - I agree with you 100% (oh my god) assuming you were not being sarcastic. But here is my point (and bear with me), the States have rights (oh my god) the States have rights to say which flag they fly, and if a southern state wishes to fly the dixie flag then why the hell shouldn't they be able to? There is a sad casualty of the scourge of political correctness here in NC, outside the courthouse there is a plinth, which states on in "in honor of the men who wore grey" the plinth is now the home to a small box containing miniature cannonballs. The statue of a confederate soldier is stashed in a storage unit somewhere gathering dust. History is history, it is so 1984 to try and rewrite it.

I used to fly a confederate flag all the time too...until I realized what I was saying by that.

There is an appropriate time and place to fly the Confederate Flag.

Flying the Confederate Flag from any State Capitol is not appropriate.

Hey, fine, Confederates for Huckabee. So he's got the Pro-slavery vote. Why am I not surprised.

Of course, Rudy will soon be reminding people of the 911 slaves his great great grandfather owned...

No matter what, with Huck in the General election, it will be a fucking HOOT!!!!

Posted by Manypaths



Glas to see you put your finger on the important issues, and aprreciate the seriousness of presidential elections.

but you're right ... and we dems hope you get your wish.

"......we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do."

That IS very funny. Also, real Christian too...right Mr. Preacher man...........

What you people are missing is that the stars and bars does not endorse slavery, it is about states rights. The civil war was about states rights, not slavery, though slavery was one of the issues.

What's next, animal rights folks want the bear taken off of the California flag?

FFD - thank you for that, the civil war was not about slavery, for once and for all people, it was not about slavery, it was about the rights of the States, it was about the rights of the States to make their own laws divorced from the Federal Government, but then the Federal Government discovered the Interstate Commerce clause and all of a sudden the Federal Government decided that it had an interest in EVERYTHING that the states do. You buy a gun in NC, the metal that made that gun, was perhaps, maybe, originated from a place out of state, makes the Interstate Commerce clause in effect which basically says the Federal Government has control over everything.

What you people are missing is that the stars and bars does not endorse slavery, it is about states rights. The civil war was about states rights, not slavery, though slavery was one of the issues.

Posted by FFD
* * * *

What were the other issues, then?

I live in the South, and hear that line all the time, about the war being about "States' Rights"--but it was states' rights over slavery, wasn't it? I mean, the CSA's finest didn't go marching off to war because the north had different standards for railroad gauges.

Methinks that most Southerners know--deep down--that the reasons they fought so hard for so long were, ultimately, kind of noxious. So they had to say that the REAL reason they did so was because of liberty. When it wasn't--it was the opposite.

Rightisright is, well, right.

The main reason that the South was against abolition is that their entire economy was based on free labor, and if it was removed then their economy would collapse. Therefore, they felt that they had no choice but to fight to protect their way of living and their livelihoods.

"States Rights" is just a revisionist way of saying "don't mess with our labor pool" (who they just so happened to be view as sub-human to begin with).

As for the flag, it is an offensive symbol to many people (not me personally, however), and IMHO should be taken down off of public places.

RightIsRight.

Most of the southerners who fought in the Civil War were not slave owners.

I suggest you start reading about American history from the VERY begining. It is ALL about states rights. Or is the PC version different now?

" It is ALL about states rights. Or is the PC version different now?"

You're joking, right?

Medical marijuana, California's energy initiative, Terri Schiavo...

...where the hell have you been? It seems the BUSH version is different.

The main reason that the South was against abolition is that their entire economy was based on free labor ....

Posted by Rightocenter at 2008-01-18 08:14 PM | Reply

This is a common and ignorant belief. Owning slaves was hardly 'free labor.' Slaves cost a lot of money to buy, and they cost money to sustain.

From the perspective of the 1860 slave owner, a good slave worth $4,000 is the same as $90,000 today: that's a good piece of farm equipment.

In a crude way, imagine you went to Iowa and told all the farmers it was immoral to own tractors, plows, combines, seeders and other equipment they'd invested in.

I've read economic analyses of plantations that argue slaves are not a good investment because they represented stranded assets: hard to liquidate because everyone else in the area had all their own money tied up in slaves.

Slavery was a horrific human and economic situation. But it was hardly free.

That IS very funny. Also, real Christian too...right Mr. Preacher man...........


Posted by ride_on at 2008-01-18 07:52 PM | Reply

I'm a Christian and if you came into my yard to tell me what kind of flag I could fly over my house, I'd also remind you that I'm an American.

And I'd tell you to shove it up your ass. And if you did not leave, I'd get my gun.

Funny how you flakes think Christians are supposed to roll over for your silly bullshit.

Pardon me. In thinking 'What Would Jesus Do' I realized I should have said that differently ....

"Funny how you flakes think Christians are supposed to roll over for your PC bullshit."

Please forgive me.

Once and for all people, it was not about slavery

Bullshit, you fucking liar.

Whatever motives the individual soldiers may have had, the war was about slavery. Modern southerners don't want to admit it, because it makes their great grandpappies look like assholes. Too bad, they were - and so were mine, I have at least 8 relatives who fought on the wrong side in that war. Making the Confederate cause into "State's Rights" is the worst kind of revisionist history, the only Right they claimed was the right to buy and sell human beings.

And the VERY best part is that we don't have to speculate - certainly not in the case of South Carolina. South Carolina was so very fucking proud of itself, their legislature adopted a formal "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union", in which they made their reasons for seceeding quite clear.

Here's a taste:

"Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

Now shut the fuck up about "State's Rights".

What you were trying to express perhaps is better summed up in the Bonnie Blue flag? The original flag of the Confederacy ....

en.wikipedia.org

Posted by vernon

That is the most boring flag I have ever seen.


And if Southerners want to fly the flag that reminds everyone what losers they were when they got their ass kicked and burned to the ground, that's fine with me.

Hucksterbee is just pandering to the yokals.
Sort of like Hillary with her fake Keentuck aakseent when she was stumping in Kentucky.

And if Southerners want to fly the flag that reminds everyone what losers they were when they got their ass kicked and burned to the ground, that's fine with me.

Yeah, and now the rest of the US and world get to feel the wrath of the federalist government that the globalist bankers hoodwinked Lincoln into creating.

"Owning slaves was hardly 'free labor.' Slaves cost a lot of money to buy, and they cost money to sustain."

Vernon, you wouldn't make it through the first week in a college class. If you really want to break down the economic equation, you must compare apples to apples. Two people are working. Two jobs are being done. So far the economic equation is equal, but here's where it parts: one person is being paid nothing, just boarded and fed. One person is being paid enough to feed and shelter himself, and maybe another person. At the very least to enjoy other life amenities, greater than living in slavery. To make a statement like you did is to misunderstand one of the basic concepts of mathematics: addition.

"From the perspective of the 1860 slave owner, a good slave worth $4,000 is the same as $90,000 today: that's a good piece of farm equipment."

Some bigoted statements defy comment.

"I've read economic analyses of plantations that argue slaves are not a good investment because they represented stranded assets: hard to liquidate because everyone else in the area had all their own money tied up in slaves."

What you've read...are folks trying to justify an evil. Sure, there were probably individual business owners who, because of a labor intensive business, saw deeper troughs during slow times. But overall, the equation paying someone just enough for food and shelter is less than paying someone enough for food and shelter and other things in life remains intact.

"Slavery was a horrific human and economic situation. But it was hardly free."

True. Yet somehow you're arguing it's the poor slaveowners who should be pitied. You're joking, right?

My family came over from England right after World War 2, though some members of my mother's family reportedly fought on the Union side, though I've looked for records and can't find any.

So I've no real horses in this race, and I'm able to be somewhat objective. I get a little amused at Southerners who wax nostalgic about the way things used to be down here; even this weekend, there are people I work with--investment bankers and million-dollar-producing asset managers, no less--who refer to this upcoming holiday as "Robert E. Lee Day". Which is fine, free country and all that. But their arguments on most points fall flat. I'll admit that the Army of Northern Virginia had perhaps the finest collection of officers ever assembled (Lee, Stuart, Jackson, and the best of all--Longstreet)--but the other Confederate armies had dismal leadership, despite popular opinion to the contrary. And the states' rights question keeps coming up, and I ask them: just what states' rights are you referring to, if not slavery? I'm a small-government conservative, and would be easily persuaded by a laundry list of Washington directives, punitive taxes, excessive regulations--but they can't come up with any--just slavery. I'm also sympathetic to the argument Lee used: he personally abhorred slavery, but Virginia called him, and he answered. But in his writings he offered no self-delusions about what the war was about: the North wanted to abolish slavery, and the South didn't.
So Robert E. Lee, along with many of the confederates, were fine gentlemen, but horribly misguided. History will remember their heroism and sacrifice, but also that they committed insurrection against the world's most beneficient government. So no rebel flags for me, thanks much.

What most people that don't study history fail to realize is that the civil war wasn't about slavery until the third quarter of the war, It was about free trade, and taxation.
Lincoln was on the verge of losing the war. So he changed strategy and created a higher cause issue with slavery.
Most people don't know that in the beginning Lincoln didn't want to touch abolition with a ten foot poll. And when he finally decided to make it an issue he wanted to ship all of the freed blacks back to Africa.

Lincoln was never on the verge of losing the war. It's true that the Confederates were never far from Washington, but it's also true that while Gettysburg was raging, the Union armies were demolishing the CSA in the West and Midwest.

Gettysburg and Vicksburg, which ended at the same time, sealed the end of the show for the Confederate States, and that was in summer of 1863. Now Lincoln DID badly need another victory heading in to the 1864 election year; he was running against McClellan, who promised to end the war. Sherman made it down to Atlanta and Savannah, burning both to the ground, and Lincoln was able to finish the war.

In a larger historical sense, the world should be thankful the Union won. Slavery issues aside, wouldn't it have been a disaster for the free world, had the United States of America entered the 20th century divided and rent? Against Prussian and Ostro-Hungarian militarism, then Naziism and Japanese Imperialism, then Soviet Communism--what would the world look like, today, had Johnson held the line at Chickamauga, Pickett's charge at Gettysburg had succeeded, and Lincoln lost the election?

Nothin' good, that's what.

The globalist bankers loaned money to both sides, and when the south was devastated they went in and cleaned up on land deals.
The globalist bankers also gained a power grip in Washington after the war, and went on to swindle the American people thru all of their crooked railroad dealings, stock frauds, political back room dealings and tons of pork barrel projects.
The same globalist bankers that manipulated the 1920 market crash.
The same globalist bankers that are creating the bullshit lie war on terror and are in the process of manipulating the next market crash, so they can create the North American Union, the Amero, and move forward with their plans of the complete globalization/corporatization of the whole planet.

He was losing the war politically. The bank of England was throwing their support behind the south, and had brittish ships patrolling the gulf. The northern troops were deserting as fast as they were recruiting.


I don't have time to finish. Gotta go to work.

The Bank of England didn't give the South a dime; the English fleet didn't stop the Northern blockade, the English Army never came to the South's aid. And had they done so, it wouldn't have mattered anyhow. The South was on the wrong side of history, and on the wrong side of morality: it was just a matter of time. The state of New York had four times the industrial output of the entire Confederacy, the north had a near-monopoly on railroads, and an staggering advantage in manpower. As the esteemed Shelby Foote characterized it: the North fought the war with one hand tied behind its back.

But godalmighty, you and the "globalist bankers" again. What, did they finance the Norman Conquest too? The Battle of Hastings? The Macedonian War?

You need to really get another schtick, methinks. History is a lot more rich and interesting when you don't see it through a prism of devious Jewish bankers pulling all the levers.

And I was unaware there was a stock market crash in 1920, let alone that it was masterminded by the powers that be to . . . what? . . . all go bankrupt together?

Nobody got rich in the Great Depression, which started in 1932, by the way, following the Crash of 1929. What good is having a lot of loans on your books, if nobody can pay you back?

The bank of England was throwing their support behind the south, and had brittish ships patrolling the gulf.
* * *

True, British ships were patrolling the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic seaboard: since the 1840's, they were commissioned to stop all slave trade between Africa and the United States. They intercepted slave traffic, along with merchantmen that employed slaves, headed to southbound ports.

Your command of history, I'm afraid, is as weak as your command of current affairs.

I suggest you start reading about American history from the VERY begining. It is ALL about states rights. Or is the PC version different now?

Posted by FFD


no shit.. the pc revisionist here have no clue.

It was states rights even after the first constitutional convention..separation from the "union" after the war was illegal not before..

But in his writings he offered no self-delusions about what the war was about: the North wanted to abolish slavery, and the South didn't.
So Robert E. Lee, along with many of the confederates, were fine gentlemen, but horribly misguided. History will remember their heroism and sacrifice, but also that they committed insurrection against the world's most beneficient government. So no rebel flags for me, thanks much.

Posted by rightisright

please enlighten us oh limey bastage..Please post links instead of bullshit as I am well aware of Lee's letters..

Doesn't sound like it.

History is a lot more rich and interesting

Posted by rightisright

yeah mr my parents came to the US after ww2 because the nazi's bombed our hovel.... what the fuck do you know about history in the south.. nada

Doesn't sound like it.

Posted by rightisright

I can trace my ancestry way past the founding in fact im a member of the SAR .. and my grandmother was a colonial dame.

some rightest self important prig that popped up after ww2 has no roots or clue about history in the south..

sit down and shaddupppp

no shit.. the pc revisionist here have no clue.

It was states rights even after the first constitutional convention..separation from the "union" after the war was illegal not before..

Posted by Legio
* * * *

Dumbass, do you REALLY want us to post thousands of links, of quotations, of Southern politicians, Southern military officers, even Southern clergy (sorry to say) who regarded the Civil War as being about slavery?

I happen to believe that when a state joins the union, it isn't a marriage intended for forever. If a state wants to leave, they should have the right to.

But the south wanted to leave because of slavery. That isn't "revisionist"--the issue of slavery touched everything.

By the way, I've never been called PC before. Feels kinda strange.

some rightest self important prig that popped up after ww2 has no roots or clue about history in the south..

sit down and shaddupppp

Posted by Legio
* * * *

You're right. I can't read a history book or anything.

Guess what? I'm not Japanese, but I know a thing or two about Pearl Harbor and the War in the Pacific. I'm not French, but I know more about the Napoleonic Wars than most Parisians. I'm not Russian, but speak the language fluently and know more Russian history than nearly anyone on earth. I'm not German, but that shouldn't disqualify me from making commentary on the Holocaust, Kristalnacht, or on Barbarossa. I'm not black, but know a thing or two about slavery. For example, that's why the South wanted to secede.

I can trace my ancestry way past the founding in fact im a member of the SAR .. and my grandmother was a colonial dame.
* * * *

Really?

Wow. That would make you . . . like . . . 180 years old.

RIR what aren't you an expert on?? I have some ideas in mind what you know little about

Surprised it took this long for Senator Byrdman to show up on a confederate flag thread.

I'm an expert on three things: history, finance and markets, and bad marriages. On everything else, I defer to those wiser than I Which is nearly everyone.

The reasons for the Civil War go far deeper and are more varied than just slavery. The South felt oppressed by the North both economically and politically.

I am expert on the benefits of liberalism.

The benefits of liberalism. Isn't that kind of like being an expert on skycrapers in Duluth, Minnesota? Or N'Sync's Greatest Hits?

Or the smartest guy in the South?

The South felt oppressed by the North both economically and politically.


Posted by CalifChris
* * *

I know. The North wanted to free the slaves, and wanted new states admitted to the union to be free states.

I concur that the Civil War was fought over states' rights. Mississippi and Alabama wanted the right to enslave other human beings. Tennessee and South Carolina wanted the right to sell off parts of families, including young children. Texas and Arkansas wanted the right to send fleets and armies of mercenaries to Africa to round up villagers and ship them to the United States to work farms and plantations and railroads.

When I say that the war was fought over slavery, and the good ol' boy says it was fought over states' rights--we're not in disagreement.

If you are such an expert on finance why do you know so little about the benefits of income redistribution?

LMAO. Okay. Suffice it to say that there are a lot more benefits of income redistribution to you, than to me.

I read DR almost daily and have for a couple of years, but I rarely post. I think this is the first time I've read a thread where I was in so much agreement with RIR. Reading this thread it seems some southerners wish the south had won and became it's own nation. With the impact they've had on national politics the last couple of decades, I almost wish they had too!

A few quick notes
A: The war of Northern Aggression WAS about states rights, About the right of the Confederate States to secede from the union. We were being taxed incessantly after we opened our own ports in Charleston and Savannah. we sent out our goods from there instead of northern ports. Northern politicos did not like this loss of income from the south and taxed us heavily.
B:Slavery DID exist in the North
C: The emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves from the north
D: More Slavery has occured under the current American flag than under the St Andrews Cross ("Confederate" flag)

HICKabees comments:

"You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag," Huckabee told supporters in Myrtle Beach, S.C. "In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell 'em what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do."



Huckabee doesn't want to tell people what to do regarding a flag that represents treason, but he'll ram his bible down your throat and into our Constitution?

Piece of shit.

A few quick notes
A: The war of Northern Aggression WAS about states rights, About the right of the Confederate States to secede from the union. We were being taxed incessantly after we opened our own ports in Charleston and Savannah. we sent out our goods from there instead of northern ports. Northern politicos did not like this loss of income from the south and taxed us heavily.
B:Slavery DID exist in the North
C: The emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves from the north
D: More Slavery has occured under the current American flag than under the St Andrews Cross ("Confederate" flag)

Posted by dixiedad826 at 2008-01-19 02:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The War of Northern Agression"....I do find that that funny.

Still fighting that one are you?

The 'Redneck X' is simply a symbol of treason.

The 'Redneck X' is simply a symbol of treason.

No, Smiley.

"Treason" is an attempt to subvert one's own nation from within--- kinda like being a typical leftist "progressive" fuck who participates in the American civic process, economy, and culture he despises.

The Confederate battle flag, on the other hand, belonged to a sovereign nation---with its own government, territory, economy, etc.

You go chew on that for a minute, you blue-state yankee sack of shit.

Now that the north is apparently populated with "men" like yourself, its probably in your best interest to do all you can to keep another such conflict from occuring ever again---whether you're smart enough to figure that out or not.

A. Yeah, right. Tariffs. It was all about tariffs. Funny, didn't seem to be mentioned a lot BEFORE the war. Doesn't explain why the slave states wanted to export their unhumanity to the western states (Kansas/Nebraska/Missouri). Doesn't explain anything, really. It's not like you didn't have representatives in Congress.

B. Not all slave states seceded, true. But by the end of the war, all the slaves were free in the US, mission accomplished.

C. See B.

D. Duh, it only flew for 4 years. But since the it was chosen to rally the cause of human trafficking instead of freedom, it gets the prize.

Look, you want to be "Rebels", rant about "bleeding heart liberals" and brag about being rednecks (which to the rest of the world means "stupid"), that's fine. That's not what that flag stands for, at least not in the eyes of anyone but you.

When someone wears a swastika, they might mean "White racial pride", but the rest of the world thinks "piece of shit Nazi, DIAF". This is kind of the same thing - choose your symbols better.

Pinchy, first test of being a sovreign nation - don't let the people you broke away from burn your capitol to the ground, defeat your armies, and free your slaves.

The south needed to WIN to become a nation - and they didn't. Cry about it all you want, I know you all love being eternal victims.

Now that the north is apparently populated with "men" like yourself, its probably in your best interest to do all you can to keep another such conflict from occuring ever again---whether you're smart enough to figure that out or not.

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-01-19 03:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Bring it on, pussy.

Who knew this would turn into such an interesting thread?

Suppose you Dixiecrats are right in every respect, and that flying the Confederate Flag merely conjures up memories of Longstreet's Wilderness Campaign, or First Manassas, and those are things you want to celebrate. By the way, that's fine with me--I have an Italian neighbor who flies an Italian flag, and another neighbor who on game days likes to fly the banner for the University of Miami (may they burn in hell).

And of all the posters on here, I would likely be the very last to make an appeal to your sensitivity. But to millions of blacks, the Confederate flag represents a throwback to the most tyrannical of regimes, the one which bathed all of North America in blood for the right to keep them in chains, where they would be still today. Were I black, I might not march on Columbia to demand removal of the flag. But I WOULD regard everyone with a Confederate flag decal on his truck, or with a t-shirt with a silly "The South Shall Rise Again", as a racist prick. That would be MY prerogative. I would feel the same were I Jewish and see a Nazi parade or flag.

I love the South. The world's most beautiful beaches, prettiest mountains, most wonderful people. And there are thousands of ways to demonstrate pride in your heritage, and of the South, than to wave a flag of secessionist treason in the faces of those who would be your slaves. But you can do as you like; it's a free country. No thanks to Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, though.

I have lived in the South most of my life in several different states. I have seen people fly the Confederate flag in front of their homes or even from their pick-up trucks. As far back as I can remember, the more intelligent people considered those who did so to be white trash too stupid to know any better. Nothing I have read on this thread alters that impression. Many of the posts actually demonstrate the truth of that impression. Confederate flags and low IQs seem to have a link which seems to be genetic, it quite possibly has something to do with inbreeding.
Mike Hucksterbee's supporters are the most interrelated political group in history. Thankfully, Mike isn't smart enough to conceal his racism or his dislike of religious freedom. Most Americans, liberal and conservative alike, hear his support for things like flying the Confederate flag and realize he shouldn't even be a governor much less a president.

I'm having to deal with actually being in agreement with RiR. It's uncomfortable.

!

Aw. The rest I posted was in Russian and didn't make it. Anyway - good on you, RiR.

But to millions of blacks, the Confederate flag represents a throwback to the most tyrannical of regimes, the one which bathed all of North America in blood for the right to keep them in chains, where they would be still today. Were I black, I might not march on Columbia to demand removal of the flag. But I WOULD regard everyone with a Confederate flag decal on his truck, or with a t-shirt with a silly "The South Shall Rise Again", as a racist prick. That would be MY prerogative. I would feel the same were I Jewish and see a Nazi parade or flag.


Only the St Andrews cross.. I fly the first flag of the confederacy and 99% of you morons think it is the NC state flag or some revolutionary war throwback flag.

"...where they would be still today."

Bullshit Flag!

That's like saying if it wasn't for Einstein, we wouldn't have e=mc^2.

Only the St Andrews cross.. I fly the first flag of the confederacy and 99% of you morons think it is the NC state flag or some revolutionary war throwback flag.

Posted by Legio
* * * *

You're right about that. The first flag of the confederacy lasted just a few months, the Confederacy itself--just under four years.

Makes me kinda wonder what the point of it is. Flying it, I mean.

That's like saying if it wasn't for Einstein, we wouldn't have e=mc^2.

Posted by happyending
* * *

Not really. Your post is logically fallacious, because you need to affirm a positive, instead of negating one.

It would me MORE like saying, if the Americans hadn't won the Revolutionary War, we would still be British subjects. Still hard to know for sure, and it's likely that we would've eventually been like Canada--but it would've required other means to have an independent United States.

Ditto for slavery. Were the Confederacy to have won the war, it's possible that slavery would've been abolished in the slave states eventually. But it's also possible it wouldn't have been. In any event, it's hard to see an integrated South, had McClellan won the election of 1864--don't forget, it would've been two countries, after all.

Thankfully, it's only conjecture. The right side won.

"Your post is logically fallacious, because you need to affirm a positive, instead of negating one."

Well, excuse me. How's this then:

That's like saying if it wasn't for Einstein, we would still have an unequivalence between energy and mass.

Not really. I get nervous when I hear comparisons like that. Kinda like, if it weren't for Columbus, we still wouldn't have found North America. Now it IS possible that, without Einstein, we wouldn't have RELATIVITY. But that's another discussion.

If the Union hadn't won the war, slavery would've undoubtedly persisted in the south. Two generations? Four? Six? Who really knows? In Alabama, but not in enlightened Virginia? In fact, it's not likely that even the CSA could've survived for much longer--there would've been secessions among the secessionists. But it's interesting that today's Confederate sympathizers pretend the war wasn't about slavery. Which would've come as a surprise to everyone involved at the time. Could it be that, deep down, they know the biggest reason the war was fought was morally indefensible on their side?

I personally enjoy reading these kinds of threads. It is very telling about the philosophy of the people who post here.

First - I do love reading posters comments like Common Sense saying that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason. If you read carefully, you can almost hear the contempt with which he and people like him holds the Confederacy. At the risk of committing the 'logical fallacy' complained of by Right is Right, one can only imagine had the British won, Commonsense could be posting something about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and how stupid they were to believe that the people should be allowed to govern themselves, perhaps with some comment or another about how happy he is to be a subject of the British Crown.

Second - If we believe the standard offered by Right is Right concerning the offensive nature of the Confederate Flag, then on behalf of our Native Peoples, I demand that the flag referred to as "Ole Glory' be immediately removed from all state buildings, as it is a symbol of genocide, thievery, betrayal, and broken treaties.

Third - I see a number of posts that say something like - "the 'right side' won and you got your asses kicked." It sure is nice to see that when convenient, the people who are generally against Bush for essentially fighting the same kind of illegal war against Iraq - although not committing the same kind of war crimes or violations of American Civil Rights - will conclude with "might makes right" Let's remind everyone that you got your ass kicked by our superior forces...that proves that we were int he 'right side' of history.

You have truly made me smile this morning!

I do love reading posters comments like Common Sense saying that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason.

If a failed attempt at secession isn't treason, what is? If we were still British colonies, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of them would be portrayed in a much less favorable light here. To the victor go the spoils.

RCADE,

"To the victor go the spoils."

So by that logic, there is no problem with stealing land from the Native Americans - after all, they lost the war.

I can't imagine what the problem with slavery is, after all, they were captured fair and square. Many times sold by a tribe that had captured or defeated them in battle.

And finally, I suppose that - in order to salvage credibility and lower the price of gasoline - George Bush should issue an order that the military in Iraq employ General Sherman's approach to the Savannah Campaign.

"To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility."

William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864.

After the killing stops, we just TAKE the oil that we want? After all, might makes right and "to the victors go the spoils." Surely that is not the philosophy that governs your life?

Jesta bogus argument.

From your link referring to the 'historically official' flag of the rebellion:

It was also used in combat, but its similarity to the Stars and Stripes caused confusion on the battlefield. While this flag was the original confederate flag, it was the Confederate "Southern Cross" that is typically associated with the confederacy today.

Well no shit no wonder almost no one would recognize it as the flag of the South.

But who wouldn't recognize the stars and bars as the Southern flag?

More Jesting?

Your Link shows the original stars and bars not the Only stars and bars.

And the original certainty is not what is recognized today.

But do keep up the bogus argument. I'm enjoying seeing obscure flags of a defeated uprising that endorsed and defended slavery.

"But do keep up the bogus argument. I'm enjoying seeing obscure flags of a defeated uprising that endorsed and defended slavery."

Relax, ZAP...I'm not endorsing and/or defending anything


Relax yourself Jest, I never said you did...

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Devereaux D. Cannon, Jr., Flags of the Confederacy: An Illustrated History (Memphis, Tennessee: St. Lukes Press, 1988). George Pierce Garrison, "Another Texas Flag," Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 3 (January 1900). Museo Nacional de Historia, Banderas: Catlogo de la Coleccin de Banderas (Mexico City: Secretara de Gobernacin, 1990). Whitney Smith, The Flag Book of the United States (New York: Morrow, 1975). Whitney Smith, Flags through the Ages and across the World (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975). Charles A. Spain, Jr., "The Flags and Seals of Texas," South Texas Law Review 33 (February 1992). Alan K. Sumrall, Battle Flags of Texans in the Confederacy (Austin: Eakin Press, 1994).

But he sure has a big chunk of Texas bearing his name.

You don't see much of the Southern Cross in Texas except in East Texas, where, in my experience, it is frequently called the "Stars & Bars" out of ignorance.

I lived in Kentucky once. Ft Campbell.
I'm an Army Brat.
My old man was a Colonel, 82nd Airborne Artillery.

"Hood wasn't really a Texan."

No, and he was pretty much useless after Gettysburg where he sustained some serious wounds. Some cite his use of laudenum for pain as the reason for his ineffectiveness, especially at Franklin. He was a good friend of Jefferson Davis and could never be replaced.

"You don't see much of the Southern Cross in Texas except in East Texas, where, in my experience, it is frequently called the "Stars & Bars" out of ignorance."

That is a common mistake throughout the entire U.S. That was the whole point of my posting on this thread. Personally, I don't believe ANY of the flags should be displayed on statehouses or such, but mainly the whole fuss is over nothing important. If that's a big worry for the nation then we don't have much to worry about, do we? Huckabee should be sent to his room for stirring this fuss.

How about some of the flags that were not defeated in their uprising, but did defend slavery.

americanrevwar.homestead.com

POSTED BY A_CITIZEN


Well, how about them?

If that's a big worry for the nation then we don't have much to worry about, do we? Huckabee should be sent to his room for stirring this fuss.

POSTED BY JESTGETTINALONG

It's called inciting one base. In this case a pretty basic base...

Make that inciting ones base.

Maybe he was doing base.

Well, one thing this thread clearly shows is that The Huckster's pandering to the SC crowds isn't going to help him get the independent or cross-aisle votes that he's going to need to win the general election.

rightisright and others are correct. The "states' rights" cry over the use of the Confederate flag is bullshit.

The slavery issue was THE issue regarding so-called "states' rights."

There are plenty of Christians who believe in the separation of church and state and nobody else could possibly vote for him.

U.S. Constitution: Article VI
...
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


Huckabee has made it a religious test.
He really doesn't get it.

Now that the north is apparently populated with "men" like yourself, its probably in your best interest to do all you can to keep another such conflict from occuring ever again---whether you're smart enough to figure that out or not.

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-01-19 03:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

HillBilly,

Are you suggesting that the south is somehow going to become a rogue nation, yet again? Good luck with that.

Typical treasonous redneck babble.

YEEEEE-Huh?

Now that the north is apparently populated with "men" like yourself, its probably in your best interest to do all you can to keep another such conflict from occuring ever again---whether you're smart enough to figure that out or not.

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2008-01-19 03:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

One more thing, as for being "smart enough to figure that out or not", it's hardly the south that's known for it's educational institutions.

YEEEEE-Huh?

You have truly made me smile this morning!

Posted by A_Citizen at 2008-01-19 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Face it, the south lost. Suck it up and deal with it.

Gee, now I have a smile.

What's that saying that so many in the south love to scream...."America, love it or leave it". The same applies to you too. Except you don't get to take the land with you.

your choice.

One more question for all of you that love to fly the 'redneck X' high and proud;

Would you have ANY issues at all with the states of the Union NOW changing their flags to have a confederate flag on it with a circle and a slash through it....ala Ghostbusters style?

Are you saying that you wouldn't make a single peep about that?

Just wondering.

Pinch-my-ass thinks he's bad.

Might have something to do with the ankle deep gene pool south of the Mason Dixon.

Just another braggart from Texass.

You can't pick and choose history.
Leave the Confederate flag alone.
There is no more slavery and we fought a Civil War over it (among other issues).

You can't keep wiping out reminders of our U.S. heritage and history just because it isn't currently PC to do and offends this group or that group. Get over it. Tomorrow is Martin Luther King Day -- a great man who deserves to be honored for all he did. Celebrate the long way we have come as a nation and stop trying to suppress the past.

"You can't keep wiping out reminders of our U.S. heritage and history just because it isn't currently PC to do and offends this group or that group."

No one wants to wipe out reminders of our heritage but when a Presidential candidate finds it necessary to say that he approves of flying the flag of secession necessitated by the desire to keep slaves, in a state populated by many descendants of those slaves then he should face the consequences of uttering such controversial words. It isn't as if Hucksterbee didn't know that his comments would offend many black people, he knew that, he just didn't care because he also knows they wouldn't vote for him anyway. He was obviously trying to please the white folks who still have tendencies towards racism. He knows that, he isn't stupid though he does pretend to be a hick. He is the most calculating (triangulating) of all the politicians running for president today.

With the impact they've had on national politics the last couple of decades, I almost wish they had too!


What impact would that be?

Ohhh. Well let's see. There's Reagan who hailed from California. Can't count that one. Then there was George Bush. He was from Massachusetts. Then we have Clinton. Well this guy is the Liberal fucking hero, you can't possibly be talking about him. Finally, we have George W Bush. Hails from Connecticut. A blue-blood through and through.

So what were you saying about Southerners and their politics?

You know what's great? When folks talk about how the evil Southern rednecks had slaves and fought a war over the preservation of the institution of slaver, they always seem to forget to mention that Lincoln wasn't a big fan of black folks.

Infact, his plan was to send them all back to Africa. They also forget to mention that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South.

"States Rights - States Rights..."

(Cue Baby Crying - Waaaaaaa!)

Vermin, et al:

You seem to have forgotten the most important thing:

States- Rights and it's adherants LOST THE CIVIL WAR.

Now SHUT UP and take down the god-damn bigot's flag, you bunch of whiny southern idiots!

You and your ilk are truly losers and....Morons.

Okay, so let's take of the wonky neo-confederate tack of ignoring slavery as as issue. The Southern War of Being Beaten was fought because of tariffs, and the various flags, banner and signets of the Confederacy represented hoop skirt, vinegary bbq, lemonade and thick, luxurious sideburns, and other symbols Valor, Honor, and various other concerns of people who watch the History channel.

Okay, neat.

Forget that a certain percentage of the population of the states that make up the Confederacy may have a sort of jaundiced view of these symbols, merely because of some economic policies that might have kept their forefather from become fully realized human being, what with all the bullwhips and chains and branding and whatnot. Okay, bygones-be-bygones, let's remember the good times, etc.

Fast forward to the twentieth century, when golly, those symbols made a comeback and the folks who wrapped themselves in those symbols had a less nuanced understanding of what those symbols meant. They sort of told the world that the North/Federales were meddling once again in the affairs of Dixie, and golly, it was about race.

And gee, the folks who perhaps had that nuance appreciation for those symbols were pretty silent when the troglodytes were bombing churches and assuring themselves that one race's dominance over another would be a permanent state of affairs.

In fact, I don't recall the names of any southerner who claimed that the various symbols were being highjacked by the likes of Lester Maddox or, I don't know, the Klan.

So, not only did you lose the War, you lost control of the Brand. So pardon us if we have some trepidation when a Southerner starts getting stroppy state's rights and confederate symbols. You guys didn't seem to have to much of a problem with Bull Connor, or George Wallace taking those honorable symbols and tainting them, so you lose.

You stood by to let Nazis and cavemen co-opt it, from what I understand of trademark law, if you don't defend the trademark it's not yours.

Stars and Bars FOREVER

the confederate flag at its heart means seperation from the union
for whatever reasons. slaves, state rights, the right to a lynch blacks

that america should be divided
not united we stand
but divided we fall

if you want to raise the flag of seperatism
then do so. in fact why don't you build a wall around yourselves so no one else can come in.

i promise i'll stay out.