Sunday, September 8, 2013

Some of the Reasons I Honor Southern Soldiers ...

...And Their Flags

One person's "disgusting piece of trash" is another person's honored symbol of brave ancestors who endured unimaginable suffering to defend their land and people.

The north/union had no moral authority to invade the South, lay the place waste and keep the region in economic peonage for about five generations thereafter.

Yes, northern states abolished slavery within their borders, so northerners didn't have slaves living in their back yards anymore, but that gave them no moral authority -- they were still armpit deep in slavery.  Northern textile interests got rich processing Southern, slave-grown cotton in their mills. New England maritime interests got rich shipping Southern, slave-grown cotton to Europe. Northern banks got rich financing the purchase of plantations and slaves, and northern insurance companies got rich insuring slaves. If the north had really wanted to end slavery, all they had to do was quit buying the cotton. But they didn't, and that is why they did not have the moral authority to send a brutal army south to kill Southerners. They profited from slavery as surely as any plantation owner, but without the expense.

The states of the "first wave" of secession seceded in part (primarily) to protect slavery (although other reasons are also listed in the secession declarations). The states of the upper South seceded later, after Lincoln ordered them to provide militia to invade the seceded states. So some of the states seceded partially because of slavery; but all of the Southern states fought to protect their homes, families and communities from a brutal army of invasion. (And, no, secession was not treason.

The lack of moral authority continued after the war. Thanks to poverty created by northern economic oppression (policies of private industry but allowed by the feds), pellagra and hookworm sickened and killed Southerners, black and white, by the thousands well into the 20th century.

After the war, carpetbagger legislatures drove some Southern states so deeply in debt, the taxpayers of those states didn't get them paid off until the mid-20th century. (A lot of the money was spent on the carpetbaggers' personal enrichment.) There was little money for infrastructure, education, etc., for literally generations, because of carpetbagger debt and continuing economic oppression.  (Google "Discriminatory Freight Rates" by Carole E. Scott and see one method by which it was done, which did not end until 1952. Read "Born Fighting" by Senator James Webb to see the effects.)

Because of things like this, the South is ridiculed as backward and uneducated. That's like beating up a woman and then ridiculing her because she bleeds.

 It was a war to free slaves? No. Emphatically, no.

Yes, the flag has been misused by some groups, but so has the US. flag. And if the Confederate flag "flew over" slavery, the U.S. flag "flew over" the the country's warring against American Indians, stealing their land, decimating whole tribes and herding them into reservations in conditions worse than plantation slavery. It was official US government policy to allow killing off the buffalo to starve the Plains Indians to extinction -- so settlers could have their lands.

It's delusional to imagine the USA was morally superior to the Confederacy when you look at the whole of each, and not wear blinders that allow you to focus solely on slavery (which the north was implicit in, but which is blocked out by the blinders). And that is why so many Southerners honor the Confederate battle flag -- to acknowledge and honor the memory of Southern men who defended their homes, families and against the a brutal military invasion.


  1. Secession or Treason?
    The states that formed the Confederacy viewed secession declared as secession peacefully accomplished.
    The states that fought in the Union against the Confederacy viewed secession declared not as secession accomplished but as treason/war declared.
    Your answer: Peaceful secession.

    Military Invasion or Rebellion Put-Down?
    The states that formed the Confederacy viewed the war as a brutal military invasion into their land by Union troops.
    The states that fought in the Union against the Confederacy viewed the war as brutally putting down an internal rebellion.
    Your answer: Brutal military invasion.

  2. Secession or treason? In order for secession to be treason, there would need to be a constitutional provision which, in fact, prohibits secession. Can someone please show me, by Article, section, and clause, where the constitution contains such a prohibition? I will even offer a little guidance. Article 1, section 10, fully enumerates the powers which are prohibited to the States; please show me where the prohibition against secession is.

  3. since the Constitution is silent on secession, it is a right reserved to the states, at least according to the Founding Fathers.

  4. Correct, Brett. And, Austin, not only is secession NOT listed among the powers prohibited to the states... the power to PROHIBIT secession is not listed among those delegated to the feds...

  5. You are correct Connie. And under the tenth amendment, the powers which are neither delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states. The constitutional logic is simple, clear, and irrefutable. Which is why the Feds dared not try Jefferson Davis, or any Confederate, for treason.

  6. BTW, Michael Rodgers, you've said that the truth has no stronger advocate than Andy Hall. I disagree. Andy isn't as glib a spinmeister as Simpson, but all the floggers are talented, each in his own way, at distortions, biases, twists and spinning in their writings.

  7. Also, Mr. Rodgers, I strongly disagree that Andy is a friend to the SCV, not an antagonist. His "About" page, his "Why Dead Confederates" page and many of his blog posts just reek with the stench of scorn and loathing for white Southerners, past and present, and particularly Confederates. Like most haters of groups who are a member of the hated group, he makes an exception for himself, and for those who share his scorn.

  8. CC: "...the U.S. flag 'flew over' the the country's warring against American Indians..."

    ...and it flew over the slave ships. And probably 80% of those ships were from New England states.

  9. More than likely the Founders would have been divided on the issues of secession given their interpretations of the Constitution they created. Commons sense would indicate that the founders pulling for secession would be in the minority. The "Strict Constructionists" might have the view that some of you share, whereas as those that advocated "Implied meanings" would have said otherwise. The issue with your arguments is that even the constructionists did not see secession as liberally as some of you do.

    I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the “rights” &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each.

    It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.

    TO N. P. TRIST. … MAD. MSS.

    Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832

    Madison's use of the word "inherent", as well as Jefferson's and his use of presidential power while in office, indicates that even the strict constructions sought out "inherent" powers or implied meanings often.

  10. [cont'd]

    Jefferson, who was more liberal in the allowance of secession, did set aside certain provisions for secession which he felt states must go through before seeking that course. Sadly, losing a Presidential election is not one of the them. Neither is the "fear" of losing one's slaves.

    To sum, of the Founders that might have viewed secession as a reserved right, those men thought secession was an act of treason. But arguably a justifiable one, if against a tyrannical government. Yet, it is unlikely than any of them would have seen the South's as a justifiable secession given the numerous "ifs" they passed down. Not to mention the continuous rhetoric about the "compact" and what constitutes the "rights of revolution".

    John Adams - "Only repeated, multiplied oppressions placing it beyond all doubt that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties, could warrant the concerted resistance of the people against their government"

  11. "The lack of moral authority continued after the war. Thanks to poverty created by northern economic oppression (policies of private industry but allowed by the feds), pellagra and hookworm sickened and killed Southerners, black and white, by the thousands well into the 20th century.

    This point then can proceed into another massive counter-attack for our side.

    When the typical robotic lib says, "The Civil War was fought over slavery" we can start refraining, "The Civil War was fought to kill all the slaves by the sudden rush of death by smallpox."

    Right the second the war ended when Lee and Grant exited the Appomattox court house, did the abolitionists hurry down from New England to bring the ex-slaves to 40 acres and mule? Nope, they just went right back to their fabulously lavish New England mansions and salons and liberal, WHITE segragated, routine.

    Without a care for those slaves in the world.

    I caught an article in the NY Times, unbelievably, about the after effects of the EP. About how it wasn't really a good idea.

    It was over a new book realeased by Conneticut College professor Jim Downs on the health of the freedmen post Civil War, and the liberals in the comments section, when you look at the ones with the most popular votes by clicking the javascripts button 'Readers Picks', are denying the atrocity like deniers of the Holocaust.

    I think the Armenians have more belief about their genocide actually being believed agains their Turkish oppressors.

    "Without a proper place to live, adequate nutrition or access to basic medical necessities, freed slaves became more vulnerable to illness than Union soldiers, and as a result, hundreds of thousands of slaves became sick and died at the moment of freedom — a bitter irony often ignored in favor of a more triumphant narrative about emancipation."

    Lib comments that,

    "Prof. Downs posits that Lincoln does not deserve to be considered our national hero because he was only motivated by political expediency, the practicaliities of winning a war and did not especially care about the slaves that were freed by his efforts. That Lincoln did not prepare the gargantuan Federal effort that would have been necessary to support thousands of newly indigent people is the main evidence used to support the arguement. So his conclusion is that Lincoln was a callous, calculating, bigoted politician and no more."

    Whadda ya mean, about that 40 acres and a mule?

    In conclusion I'll bring up the fact of slaveholders who freed their slaves, AND RESETTLED them completely throughout tracts of land where they could do so, at no cost of lives, and not in continual legal struggles fostered upon them by a Reconstructionist government.

  12. What Constitutional argument did President Lincoln make to get the non-slaveholding states to stay with him in the Union and to wage war?

  13. My goodness, Rob and flame, that's too much to read. I recommend getting your own blog if you want to write so much. Best, Mike.

  14. That's a good point. To which Article, section, and clause did Lincoln reference when he argued that secession was unconstitutional? As for Madison, not only did he organize and lead the illegal secession from the "perpetual" Articles of Confederation, he openly stated that if the Union was inconsistent with the public happiness, it should be ABOLISHED. I repeat, ABOLISHED, said Madison.

  15. It should noted, of course,that Jefferson most certainly did in state that the fer of losing slave property is among the reasons for which a secession may be conducted. In fact, he said it it the Declaration of Independence.

  16. I guess I'll answer my own question. President Lincoln referred specifically to Article IV, Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...."

  17. Michael, I've got one. The comments here have a more limited quota than wordpress. I was just over the line, so I split it. Happens occasionally.

  18. The full quote, and about the quote:

    Federalist Paper: No. 45

    Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.
    (Bold: my emphasis)

    Two things: 1, Madison makes his point abundantly clear to those that read the rest of his sentence rather than cherry pick; 2, the second aspect that is in bold print, shows the Federalist papers are rarely "stand alones" as Madison references, but must be taken as a whole.

  19. I note, with smug satisfaction, that when asked to provide a constitutional prohibition against secession, the Lincolnites simply cannot do it. They scramble wildly and provide one ridiculous and desperate "explanation" after another, but they provide no constitutional prohibition against secession.

    Nor is that all. Imagine, if you will, that I argued, as a function of states rights, the states were entitled, at their own discretion, to divide themselves into two or three seperate states. Does anyone question, even for an instant, that the Lincolnites would breathlessly and immediately point to Article 4, section 3, of the constitution? Of course they would. So, instead of all this garbage they fling, why not, when asked, just point to the specific constitutional provision which prohibits secession? Because there is no such flipping prohibition, that's why. In short, it is not possible to be intellectually honest and maintain that secession is unconstitutional. It simply is not. And they know it.

    PS- Article 4, section 4, is utterly useless, for the obvious reason that the seceded States were not " in this Union".

  20. Very true Michael.

    Other secessionists also argued for Article VI, Paragraph II which states:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof. shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    That, along with Lincoln's argument based on Article IV, Section IV and Madison's argument cited above Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. is a lot stronger argument than citing the 10th Amendment and jumping up and down about it.

  21. Not to mention, Madison often stated that his and Jefferson's views on state sovereignty, nullification and secession were often perverted by "nullifiers". He says this time and time again in his letters.

  22. Still can't find it a constitutional provision which prohibits secession! huh? OK, I'll help. What you need is something like this:

    "..The Union of these United States shall be perpetual, and no State shall, without the consent of Congress, withdraw from said Union"

    See how easy that was? Surely, the combined political and legal genius of the Framers could have included that language, or language like it, if they wanted to ensure that secession was unconstitutional. Article IV, Article VI, and a letter written by an addled octogenarian....pfffft.

    Not to mention that Madison himself organized the lawless secession from the "perpetual" AoC. And that Jefferson himself championed the treasonous secession from the British Empire. And combined, they owned about 250 slaves while doing it.

  23. Southern Nationalists consider Madison one of the greatest traitors of the Revolutionary generation. Do the Flagger's views agree with this idea?

  24. Austin,
    Lincoln used Article IV, Section 4 to get the money and the troops to wage and win the war. You can say it doesn't apply all you want. Have fun.

  25. Mike,
    Lincoln also suspended habeus corpus, shut down newspapers, dissolved legislatures, and withdrew money from the treasury without legislative authorization.There is no doubt he was a lawless thug, no one ever disputed that.

    PS- Still can't find that prohibition against secession huh? lol Best wishes, enjoy.



Comments are welcome, but monitored.