Skip to comments.I Pledge allegiance to the Confederate Flag
Posted on 12/24/2001 4:25:26 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
I Pledge allegiance to the Confederate Flag, and to the Southern People and the Culture for which it stands
by Lake E. High, Jr.
The Confederate flag is again under attack, as it has always been, and as it always will be. It is under attack because of what it symbolizes. The problem is that to many Southerners have forgotten just what it does symbolize.
The Confederate Nation of 1860 - 1865 was the intellectual, as well as the spiritual, continuation of the United States of America as founded, planned, and formed by Southerners. It was the stated, and often repeated, position of almost all Southerners in the 1860s that they, and the South, were the heirs of the original political theory embodied in the U. S. Constitution of 1789. In 1860 their attempted to separate from the rest of the states and form their own nation since that was the only way the South could preserve the philosophy and the virtues that had made the United States the magnificent nation it had become.
In both of these contentions, that is, the South was the true repository of the original political theory that made the United States great, and the South was the true home of the people who took the necessary actions to found, make, and preserve the original United States, Southerners have been proven by the passage of time to be correct.
The Southern colonies of Virginia, North and South Carolina and Maryland were where the majority of the original American population resided until the 1700s despite the fact Massachusetts was settled only 13 years after Virginia and New York was settled 18 years before South Carolina. As the population of the colonies grew, the New England States and the middle Atlantic states, gained population so that by the time of the American Revolutionary War the two general areas of the north and the South were generally equal in size with a small population advantage being shown by Virginia. This slight difference in population by a southern state was to have a profound effect on the development of the United States.
First of all, the New England states managed to start a war with England, which they verbalized as "taxation without representation." In truth the problem from their point of view was the taxes on their trade. Having started the war they then promptly managed to lose it. The British, after conquering the entire north from Maine (then part of Massachusetts) to Boston, to Providence, to New York, to the new nations capital, Philadelphia, shifted their military forces to move against the Southern colonies. They secured their foothold in the South by capturing Savannah and Charleston and then proceeded to move inland to subdue the Southern population. They planed to catch the Virginia forces under General Washington in a coordinated attack moving down from the north, which they held, and up from the South that they thought they would also conquer.
The British army that had mastered the north found they could not defeat the Southern people. Once in the backwoods of the South they found themselves to be the beaten Army. The British defeats at Kings Mountain and Cowpens were absolute. Their Pyrrhic victories at Camden and Guilford Courthouse were tantamount to defeat. In both North Carolina and South Carolina they were so weakened they had to retreat from the area of their few "victories" within days. Their defeats at those well-known sites among others, along with their defeat at Yorktown in Virginia, led directly to their surrender.
Having secured the political freedom from England for all the colonists, Southerners then mistakenly sat back and took a smaller role in forming the new American government that operated under an "Articles of Confederation." That first attempt at forming a government fell to the firebrands of New England who has started the war and who still asserted their moral position of leadership despite their poor showing on the field of battle. These Articles of Confederation, the product of the Yankee political mind, gave too much economic self determination to the separate colonies (as the Northern colonies had demanded in an attempt to protect their shipping, trade and manufacturing) and too little power of enforcement to a central government.
After a period of six difficult years, when the Articles of Confederation failed as a form of government, another convention was called and a new form of government was drawn up. This time the convention was under the leadership of Southerners and they brought forth the document we all refer to as the U.S. Constitution. Even northern historians do not try to pretend the Constitution and the ideas embodied therein are anything other than a product of the Southern political mind. (Yankee historians cannot deny it, but they do choose to ignore it so their students grow up ignorant of the fact that the Constitution is Southern.) So, as it turns out, when the new nation found itself in political trouble it was the South which, once again, came to the rescue just as it had when the nation found itself previously in military trouble.
With the slight population advantage it enjoyed over other states, Virginia was able to give to the new nation politicians who are nothing short of demigods. Their names are revered in all areas of the civilized world wherever political theorists converge. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Randolph, Henry, Taylor and Monroe are just a few, there are many more. These men along with the leading political minds of South Carolina, Rutledge, Heyward, and, most importantly, Pinckney, saw their new nation through its birth and establishment.
The military leadership, as well as the political leadership, of the South saw the nation through its expansion. Under Southern leadership the British were defeated a second time in 1814. Under Southerners, most obviously John Tyler and Andrew Jackson, Florida was added as a state. The defeat of Mexico in 1846, under the Southern leadership of James Polk and numerous Southern military officers, established of the United States as a force to be feared. That was an astonishing accomplishment for so small and so young a nation
Thomas Jefferson, who added the Louisiana Purchase, barely escaped impeachment for his efforts. The north argued continuously against the war with Mexico that added the area from Texas to California just as they had argued against the Louisiana Purchase. One Congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, was particularly vehement against Texas being made a state. Northerners, having seen Mexico defeated and the United States enlarged all the way to the Pacific Ocean, then objected to the methods and motives of the acquisition of the Washington and Oregon territories in the northwest. Polk, who had added that vast area from Louisiana to California to Colorado to the pacific northwest, served only one term as President due to the constant attacks he sufferer in the Northern press. Left to the people of the north, the French would still control from Minnesota to Louisiana and Mexico would control from Texas to the Pacific while Canada would still include Washington, Oregon Idaho and Montana.
Every square inch of soil that now comprises the continental United States was added under a Southern president, and they did it over the strenuous political objections of the north. The provincial and mercenary Yankee people fought every effort to expand the United States. The expansion of the United States became a regional political disagreement that spread ill feeling north and South. Its accomplishment by Southerners was no small feat. It was accomplished under Southern military leadership and with much Southern blood. (Which is why Tennessee is called "The Volunteer State" and the names of Southerners are almost exclusively the only ones found on memorial tablets and monuments from Texas to California.). The expansion of the original colonies into the continental power it became was completely the results of the Southern mind and Southern leadership.
Having secured the freedom of the United States from England and then having formed and led the successful government into a new political age under a written constitution that is still the envy of the whole world, the South gave the entire military and political leadership that formed the United States into the boundaries it now enjoys. But these magnificent accomplishments were soon to be overshadowed by population shifts and the ensuing results that brings in a representative government. By the early 1820s the north had finally secured just enough additional population that it had achieved enough political clout to start protecting its first love, its money. The unfair and punitive tariffs that were passed in 1828 led to the Souths first half-hearted attempt to form its own separate government with the Nullification movement of 1832. The threat of war that South Carolina held out in 1832 then caused a negotiated modification of those laws to where the South could live with them. For the time being, the political question was settled by compromise.
While those changes pacified the political leaders of the South for the time being, some statesmen could see, even then, that if the North ever became totally dominant politically, the South would be destroyed, not just economically, but philosophically and spiritually as well. Those statesmen, with Calhoun in the lead, then started planting the intellectual seeds that led to the Souths second attempt at political freedom in 1860.
Unfortunately, in the 1840s Yankee abolitionist introduced the new poison of the "voluntary end" of slavery as a political issue. There were attempts by many Southerners to defuse this situation by offering an economic solution. That is, Southerners offered to end slavery in the South just as England had ended it in the West Indies, by having the slave-holders paid for their losses when the slaves were freed. The abolitionist Yankees would have none of that. Their position was simple, the South could give up it slaves for free and each farmer could absorb the loss personally. There was to be no payment. To the Yankee abolitionists it was either their way or war.
The fact that the abolitionist movement became a dominant presence in the northern part of the United States from the 1840s on is primarily because a liberal can politicize any subject and enrage any body of people regardless of the level of preexisting good will. (As current liberals have turned the simple good sense argument that one should not litter ones own environment into the political upheaval of "the ecology movement." The effectiveness of liberal methods can currently be seen in the simple instance that most people believe such nonsense as the chemical cause of "ozone depletion" and "the greenhouse effect" despite any evidence of either. Liberals are absolutely capable, by their strident, activist natures of raising any question to harmful emotional heights.)
Unfortunately, the loss of the War for Southern Independence in 1865 caused the very thing that Southern statesmen had foreseen in the 1830s; that is, the north became dominant and the cultural, spiritual, and economic base of the South was decimated. The loss of the war was most severely felt in the South, of course, but it has also had political repercussions in the north as well.
Without the South in a position of dominance, the leadership of the United States has gone from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Tyler and Polk to the inept, or leftist, Grant, Harding, Arthur, Harrison and Roosevelt, among others. Plus, the ascendancy of the leftist north to national prominence has also caused the rise of leaders in the South who had to be acceptable to the north. Such spectacularly immoral or totally incompetent Southern politicians as Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are examples of the quality of the men that the South must now produce to garner northern votes. When these modern day jackals are contrasted with the demigods the South produced when unfettered by the northern voter, that in itself should be enough to make all people reject northern philosophy and northern politics and embrace all things Southern.
As the forces of the left have gained ascendancy in the United States, the pressure intensifies to completely obliterate anything that remains between them and complete leftist victory. That means that the traditional enemy of leftists, the South, must be erased in its every form. That is why leftists always demand that even symbols of the South be eradicated.
We, therefore, now have a coalition of people who want the Southern flag taken down and hidden from public view. This coalition is composed of three main groups. First of all are African-Americans, whose emotional position is totally unmitigated by any knowledge of history. Secondly, there are Yankees who have moved to the South and who, despite their remarkable political failures in their own states, have learned nothing and continue to vote leftist here too. Or either these northern imports have been transferred here to run the newspapers that are owned by the people who live outside the South. And, thirdly, there are leftist Southerners, or Southerners of "politically correct" leaning, who have apparently learned their history from the television and movies and who feel the South is a bad place because it is not egalitarian enough.
But the demands of this coalition of political thinkers need to be put in proper perspective. Before anyone starts to tell someone else how to act and how to think, it is incumbent on him to demonstrate the success of his own ideas and actions. So far the introduction and enforcement of leftist ideas in our world has led to nothing but sorrow and degeneration. The force necessary to make people live under a leftist government has been the direct cause of the murder of over one hundred million people in this century alone. Leftist political theory has enslaved and impoverished billions of people worldwide. Its introduction has weakened even such great nations as England and France and reduced them to the status of third rate nations. Socialism in Scandinavia has reduced it to an economic level even less than that of England. In the United States leftist ideas have turned our country into the increasingly sick society it has become.
So until this coalition of leftist can point to a single successful instance of where their leftist philosophy has improved a country, or a people, rather than to the spectacular political failures the left has precipitated in any place into which its poisonous philosophy has been introduced, they have no right to demand anything of anybody. Leftist, the most spectacular political failures in all of history, have no standing to demand that Southerners accept anything that flows from their false philosophy. And of all people, leftist have the least demand on Southerners, the people who formed, guided, expanded and gave them a great country.
The Confederate flag is a symbol. It stands for the people who had the spirit, the courage, and the intelligence to give the world its greatest governmental entity. As long as the Confederate flag flies there is hope that the terrible scourge leftists have placed on the world will pass. It represents the culture that produced the most wished for, the most just, and the finest political system on earth. And as long as the Confederate flies there is hope that the greatness that was once ours may someday be reestablished.
I believe that John Hancock and some of the other boys from Massachucettes had something to do with it.
Oh, by the way, there was this little battle called Saratoga. Also, I seem to recall someone crossing the Delaware river and defeating the Hessians.
Alexander Hamilton was a New Yorker.
Yes, the Brits moved south in part because of lack of meaningful success in the northern colonies.
Keep bumping this thread; the more people who see this nonsense, the better.
God bless Dixie and damn all traitors, including confederate ones. I posted this because it is laughably false, as the next oh, 4-500 notes will show.
Hmmm....Sorry if I've offended. I find all this neo-confederate crap to be funny, in a pitiful sort of way.
Sure they have. It's called Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, Trent Lott, and on and on.
Merry Christmas, Walt.
I grow weary of the people who say this like it's a simple fact that any fool can see. Show me the facts.
Whew, I'm glad you posted this disclaimer! My nostrils were already flaring & in my family, that's a sign to head for the hills.
Yes Masser... please don't hit me with that whip again Masser.
I would think you would welcome Southern Secession as a way of getting rid of strict Constitutional constructionists. Just think of the pc utopia the north would experience without the 'obstruction' of the Southern vote.
All the ones you have named are sell-outs, turncoats and unreliable, characterless people to one degree or another. There are no R.E. Lees, Forresters, or S.W. Jacksons in that crowd.
As opposed to the Kennedys (ALL of 'em), Barney Frank, FDR, Truman, Schumer, Wellstone, and on and on.
IOW, nearly all politicians, no matter whence they hail, are scumbags. That's not what I was referring to........but you knew that.
I grow weary of the people who say this like it's a simple fact that any fool can see. Show me the facts.
See if any of this makes sense.
"The sophism itself is, that any state of the Union may, consistently with the national constitution, and therefore lawfully, and peacefully, withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union, or of any other state. The little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice...
What is now combatted, is the position that secession consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law, which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these states were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of the so-called seceding states, in common with the rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay for the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, pay no part of it herself? Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed there money?
If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain...
If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do, what the others because they are a majority may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle, and profound, on the rights of minorities. They are not so partial to that power, which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We the People."
A. Lincoln, 7/4/01
Either that, or you're sharing with us your last conversation with your IRS agent.
Merry Christmas, Walt.
Well, I LIKE grits.
Merry Christmas, N-S.
Hmmm...George W. is from Texas, right? And Cheney is from Wyoming. Colin Powell is a southerner. He's from Jamaica, right?
Well, here's the intention of one Framer:
"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."
George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786,
having said prior to the Constitutional Convention:
"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."
George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786
"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existance. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds [at the constitutional convention] led each State in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude...the constitution, which we now present, is the result of of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculularity of our political situation rendered indispensible."
George Washington to the Continental Congress September 17, 1787
George Washington was a southerner, and he was for a strong national union.
I ask this over and over, and it never gets any play:
How on earth did the image of George Washington get on the Great Seal of the CSA? Were the leaders of the south trying to dupe the common men into fighting for them, or what?
S.W. Jackson? Who's that?
You mean Thomas Jackson, known as Stonewall? How odd.
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession."
R.E. Lee January 23, 1861
Robert E. Lee was a sell-out--he sold out the Union.
The only reason he wasn't tried for treason was due to the magnaminity of the victors.
Okay, I'll quote somebody else.
"In 1886 [Henry W.]Grady, thirty-six years old, was invited to address the New England Society of New York, on the 266th anniversary to the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth. General Sherman, seated on the platform, was an honored guest, and the band played [I am not making this up] "Marching Through Georgia" before Grady was Introduced. Pronouncing the death of the Old South, he lauded the New South of Union and freedom and progress. And he offered Lincoln as the vibrant symbol not alone of reconciliation but of American character.
"Lincoln," he said, "comprehended within himself all the strength, and gentleness, all the majesty and grace of the republic." He was indeed, the first American, "the sum of Puritan and Cavalier, in whose ardent nature were fused the virtues of both, and in whose great soul the faults of both were lost."
--From "Lincoln in American Memory" by Merrill D. Peterson P. 46-48
Would you care to expound on that? How did Lincoln force the Civil War?
As to the South and their vote to split the country. That was doomed before it was even started. They lost site of the vision also. Lincoln said it right when he said that a Nation divided cannot stand. Slavery was wrong from the start. It was also economically unsound. Which is why only large plantations could afford slaves.
This country has produced great people from both the North and the South. What made this country great was not diversity. Diversity by its definition derives from divide. It was from the melding of ideas, cultures, and traditions. It was the giving up of where you came from to become part of what you chose, or was chosen for you.
The US has been called a melting pot, and it was. I grew up in an era of non-hyphenation. The older folks demanded that the young ones speak english because, "We are American".
If you make a stew and take each of the ingredients and wrap it it plastic and then cook it. You get water with some seasoning, but hey, the carrots are still carrots and the onions are still onions and the stew gets thrown out. As in a stew where each takes on some of the other while giving some of itself to the whole and makes a savory stew fit for a King, that is what this country has lost sight of. We have African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Latin-Americans etc. If you are going to insist on speaking your own language and dressing in your own way and refusing to become part of what this country should be, then leave. You would be much happier in Africa, Italy, Norway, etc.
The South has tried, (and in many places still tries) to hyphenate themselves. "American by Choice - Southern by the Grace of God". Having lived North, South, East & West and choosing South to live for the longest, I can say that North Easterners don't hyphenate. They are Americans, not Northern Americans, but Americans. There are the exceptions that are some third world-American, but they don't count.
Give it up folks, you are either and American or you are not. I can't make it any simpler than that.
Have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and may God richly bless you through out your life.
American First Last and Always
No, it's more like what my Momma used to say: Don't let the door bump you on the way out.
And oh, once you secede, don't come back to the US of A begging for "foreign aid."
Have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and may God richly bless you through out your life.
Thanks, Bill; that is great stuff.
You are demonstrating your ignorance. The existence of the single slave that was willed to Grants wife by her parents has been discussed many times here, and the idiotic charges that Grant was a 'slave owner' have been repudiated many times. Grant even came under fire at the time the 'slave' was in his procession because he paid the guy cash money to do work. The man was emancipated by Grant. And if you understood the Constitution you seem to want to wrap yourself in, you would know that under that great document, any American, north or south, owning a slave ship and transporting slaves to the US after the year 1808 was in serious violation of Federal law.
Now what other lame excuses will you come up with to justify the millions of humans kept in bondage by the same wealthy Southern landowners who designed the Stars and Bars. Whatever that flag stood for, it never stood for freedom.
Lincoln is the man who saved this country from a gang of corrupt cotton barons who made their wealth by enslaving other humans. You should fall to your knees and thank God for Lincoln instead of repeating mindless propaganda.
And doesn't now.
Yes, that was the great Virginian, General George Washington, who had the discipline, intelligence, and humility necessary to win a new kind of continental warfare against the mightiest empire on earth.
Don't get me wrong, I think Hamilton is one of the most underrated of our Founders, but, the President of the Convention was George Washington, James Madison has as much or more input into the document as anyone, George Mason wrote the Virginia Bill or Rights upon which the first ten amendments were based (and it was his resistance to signing the U.S. Const. that created the necessity of a Bill of Rights being promised to ensure ratification).
Southerners simply contributed more to the founding of the country when you look at individual contributions.
I agree with you, and am sure that I am more in tune with you on this issue than with WhiskeyPapa. However, this is really a terrible essay that is full of false assertions, and it does nothing for the southern cause.