This is actually considered “news” by whatever the hell Right Wing Watch is.
Regardless of what ever else the flag means or even has come to mean, it is the flag of the southern Democrats.
Mr. Lincoln’s war was really the Republicans (North) versus the Democrats (South). It just so happened that the Democrats were the slave owners. The Republicans won the war and to the victors went the spoils. They freed the slaves from the Democrat slave owners. But the reason the war began was not slavery, but the Southern states wanted to succeed.
If by “small part” he means “primary cause of” then he’s correct. ;d
I have a deep dislike of the bullying and hectoring that Southern partisans and apologists receive these days, but the truth of the matter is that the myth of the Lost Cause is a toxic burden for them and the country at large. Slavery was wrong in principle and stupid and vile in practice, and the leaders of the Confederacy — who wrecked their society and shed rivers of blood for slavery — ought not to be mythologized as noble men. Displaying a Confederate flag has the unfortunate connotation that one does not quite get that.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
I thought that the "small part" quote had to be false, but I listened to the audio, and Steve King did use those words. I like Steve King, but that was a gaffe.
Guts.
Good man
You can’t obliterate history.
You shouldn’t even try.
Both sides fought......men on both sides died.
Honor that.
Preserve the heritage.
For the first time in my 64 years I own a Confederate flag. I bought a couple of lapel pins recently out of disgust with the war on history. Don’t know when I will wear one, but I have them now.
The U.S. Civil War was about slavery just like the American Revolution was about tea.
It matters not a fig whether the war was about slavery because slavery was both legal and Constitutionally-protected. The upshot is that waging war to end slavery* was every bit as lawless and unconstitutional as it would be for Obama to issue a “Freedom From Firearms Proclamation,” then invade every home in every Red State to seize all guns.
In the aftermath of the civil war that that would precipitate, if the Red States won, the history books would read that they had fought to preserve the Constitution and defend against encroachments of individual liberty.
But if the Alinsky-ites were to win, they would write that it was the Red States’ love of guns and callous disregard for their fellow man had made the war necessary (conveniently ignoring that neither of these was either extra-legal or extra-constitutional).
In case you weren’t aware, Lincoln’s failure to plan for the upkeep of the newly freed slaves was the indirect cause of one million of them dying before the end of the decade. So while Lincoln might (underline might) have freed the slaves, his lack of foresight cost one in every four of them their life. http://nyti.ms/1aeQoY6
Lincoln, the great emancipator. La vérité historique est souvent une fable convenue.
*Yeah, I know that wasn’t Lincoln’s motivation, but I had to dumb it down for the benefit of the historical sophists.