Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered
Megyn Kelly.Org ^ | 7/9/2015 | Megyn Kelly

Posted on 07/13/2015 8:05:28 AM PDT by HomerBohn

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-265 next last
To: HomerBohn

Megyn Kelly the real brains at Fox News. The networks crown jewel. Gretta is good too, but Megyn is at an entirely different level.


121 posted on 07/13/2015 10:36:09 AM PDT by jpsb (Believe nothing until it has been officially denied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

The truth of what you are saying is found in the popular songs of the time.

The Battle Hymn of the Republic is a great example of the Union picking a song which would motivate the troops with a moral crusade instead of one against tarriffs.

The cynical purpose of the Union leadership was to use slavery as a wedge issue even though it was a secondary issue the origins of the conflict. U.S. Grant cared not whether slaves were found freed or not, as he kept his slaves even after the war.


122 posted on 07/13/2015 10:44:45 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

As a white Yankee, Texan by choice, it’s easy for me to not be offended by the Battle Flag. Down here in Texas Juneteenth is a big deal. I’ve been to one last year but this year after the murders by Roof in Charleston, I didn’t want to be the only white guy there.
Having said the above, I can see blacks being offended by the Battle Flag, but will say perhaps Battle Flag on state or government lands should come down EXCEPT in cemeteries to celebrate Confederate soldiers and on private property should always be 1st AM legal.
As a Philly to Texas transplant I will say this though, “I love that Natural born real Texans have great pride in the Lone Star Flag” and I love that they have such state pride. All I can say about the Pennsylvania Flag is I rarely saw it, it was blue and had some liberty lady or justice thing in the middle.
The Lone Star Flag never fought the Union unless I imagine some proud Texans carried it during the CW to show where they were from.


123 posted on 07/13/2015 10:49:12 AM PDT by Undecided 2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

God bless Megyn Kelly! This article should be downloaded and read in every high school civics classroom.


124 posted on 07/13/2015 10:55:51 AM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
U.S. Grant cared not whether slaves were found freed or not, as he kept his slaves even after the war.

The single slave that Grant ever had, he freed in 1859.
125 posted on 07/13/2015 11:02:05 AM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
there were five Union States in which Slavery continued all throughout the Civil War.

You know better than that, Di.

When the war ended, there were only two states where slavery remained legal. DE and KY. Slave in all other states had already been freed either by the Emancipation Proclamation or by state action.

126 posted on 07/13/2015 11:02:20 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Utterly irrelevant - and you know it.


127 posted on 07/13/2015 11:04:38 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Yeah, what of it? The Declaration trumps it.

Does it now?

It is the Declaration that created this country. The Constitution is just the outline for governing it.

And part of that governing includes the power to call up the militia to suppress rebellions. Like the Southern one in 1861.

128 posted on 07/13/2015 11:35:36 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
When the war ended, there were only two states where slavery remained legal. DE and KY. Slave in all other states had already been freed either by the Emancipation Proclamation or by state action.

Maryland ended slavery November 1, 1864. That is most of the way through the war.

Missouri ended slavery January 11, 1865, which is also most of the way through the war.

They certainly didn't end slavery on April 12, 1861.

Your quibble is over matters of months.

129 posted on 07/13/2015 11:41:03 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

Thanks for the great analysis and some of the little-known facts about Lincoln. No matter what has been said or written, the Civil War was about states rights, not slavery. That’s why it should be called the war of secession.

I truly believe the South will rise again sans slavery. Only this time, there will be more states(or parts of states) and a new Confederacy. If the best educated minds cannot learn from the past, we’re doomed to repeat it.

An over-reaching central government, cannot force us to live under tyranny and injustice much longer. It will not fulfill it’s duties delegated under the Constitution. It interferes and restricts states rights granted to them by the Constitution. It has become all powerful. We have become subjects to the federal government, not the other way around. It has become corrupt.

The Confederate flag was a symbol of rebellion. Soon, there will be a new flag and history will repeat itself. Banning the Confederate flag will not prevent what is inevitable.


130 posted on 07/13/2015 11:42:01 AM PDT by Texicanus (Texas, it's like a whole 'nother country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Independence always requires military battles. It also always requires constant vigilance. We have not been vigilant and now are no longer independent people. We are all subjects of our elite betters who reside and take orders from DC.


131 posted on 07/13/2015 11:42:18 AM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Texicanus

What “states rights” in particular?


132 posted on 07/13/2015 11:43:15 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy

I’ll have to check on that. I remembered it off the top of my head from a book.


133 posted on 07/13/2015 11:44:03 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
And part of that governing includes the power to call up the militia to suppress rebellions. Like the Southern one in 1861.

A Rebellion is not the same thing as a multi state movement for independence. The Population of the Southern states was nearly three times larger than that of the 13 colonies when they left the British Union to form their confederacy.

134 posted on 07/13/2015 11:44:08 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
The fact of their slave ownership is directly on point. Don't make excuses. It was as evil then as it was in 1861. Fighting for representation does not confer absolution on those who denied it in the most fundamental ways to others. You know that the war was specifically over the secession and attempt of the parent country to stop it, as it was in 1776. See the Crittenden–Johnson Resolutions, for example, or Lincoln's own statements regarding slavery in his inaugural address.

Yes, preservation of slave-based agricultural economies was the prime factor motivating secession, but the technical representation of the Southern states meant little if the balance of power was such that they would lose on what amounted to a vital national interest. The evil that helped fund the Revolution still drove Southern economies. Putting 21st Century moral axioms aside, what were they to do should abolition have been forced on them? Collapse, probably.

The North and South were essentially two nations culturally and economically by the time of the war. I see tyranny not in the Union's western expansion policy vis-a-vis slavery, but rather in its refusal to allow the Southern states' independence once the people of those states made their intention clear. There are worse things than disunion, and I suspect we will have an opportunity to learn this lesson again, just drawn along different lines. We will have to agree to disagree on the relative justness of the two revolutions. Cheers
135 posted on 07/13/2015 11:44:43 AM PDT by Trod Upon (Every penny given to film and TV media companies goes right into enemy coffers. Starve them out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Jim from C-Town
Independence always requires military battles.

It does when it is against a country that claims such a thing is illegal, such as Great Britain.

Our country does not make such a claim, in fact it is quite the opposite. Our country specifically asserts regarding government that "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This is the principle that founded our nation, that the right to self determination is a God given right, and no higher authority can exist to challenge it.

Our country should have simply recognized this same right when others sought to exercise it. No military conflict should have been necessary.

We have not been vigilant and now are no longer independent people. We are all subjects of our elite betters who reside and take orders from DC.

We are in the same boat as those Confederates were, sans the issue of slavery. Unfortunately, too many people want to obsess over that red herring and thereby give up the rights of the people to leave oppressive government.

136 posted on 07/13/2015 11:50:01 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy
The single slave that Grant ever had, he freed in 1859.

His wives slaves which he ordered about, don't count.

137 posted on 07/13/2015 11:50:52 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: polymuser

Dunno.

I do know I’ve checked the website and it appears legitimate.


138 posted on 07/13/2015 11:55:11 AM PDT by HomerBohn (When did it change from "We the people" to "screw the people" ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
But a half-truth is still a whole-lie.

That's the way the Democrats and their 'moderate' Republicrats would see it.

139 posted on 07/13/2015 11:56:15 AM PDT by HomerBohn (When did it change from "We the people" to "screw the people" ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Exactly where and when did Grant order these slaves—who belonged to his father-in-law, not his wife—about?


140 posted on 07/13/2015 11:56:22 AM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-265 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson