Topic: Events
Confederates To Rally At The South Carolina State House on Jan. 23, 2010!
Confederate flag supporters from around the South will be rallying at the South Carolina State House in Columbia in order to protest a bill to remove the Confederate Flag titled H-3588by Trevor Benson
(libertarian)
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Confederate flag supporters from around the South will be rallying at the South Carolina State House in Columbia. The rally comes as an act of protest to a bill currently in the house titled H-3588 which is said that if passed it will remove the Confederate Battle Flag flying in honor over the South Carolina Confederate soldiers monument on the state house lawn. It is also said that the bill may bring about the removal of the monument completely.
The fact that the legislature is even debating this bill is sad news for the State of South Carolina, especially with the US currently in an economic crises, government takeover of health care on the horizon, and thousands of US troops being deployed to fight an unjust total war on Afghanistan, this is the last issue that South Carolina should be looking at.
Is trying to forget the soldiers of all races (yes, there are Black Confederates honored on the South Carolina monument too) that fought and died to defend their home from a raging war criminal, arsonist, anti-Semite named Sherman who eventually had Columbia burned to the ground, really more important then the current monetary and foreign policy issues in this country? I don't think so, and I think those that do should be ashamed and ignored.
If there is any monument that needs to be defended it's this one. A memorials sole purpose is to help future generations remember something important that occurred in the past. Today too many people have forgotten the struggle that millions of Southerners went through to defend themselves from a tyrannical foreign invasion that had them conquered and subjugated. Irish Confederate General Patrick Cleburne just before his death at the Battle of Franklin said it best when he stated:
"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."
Today some of the citizens of South Carolina have already begun to regard their gallant dead as traitors by trying to hide their memorials. These memorials are in honor of an unrepresented people unlike those of US soldiers, and we can only rely on the people of the South to uphold them because the US government obviously will not. Can you imagine what would have occurred if the colonies had lost their war for independence? Britain surely wouldn't be happy flying their "rebel" flag over any monuments either, and yet as quick as people are to defend the US flag they still cannot see any similarity between it's original intent and the original intent of the Confederate Battle Flag, which is self-determination.
Today we must take a stand and help defend the monument to the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children of all races and religions that died to defend their homeland. We must say "NO!" to H-3588.
If you would like to attend the rally at the South Carolina State House, it will be held: "SAT. JAN 23, 2010 11am-3:00pm"
Tentative plans for the rally are said to be: "Rockn' Roll Bands,Guest Speakers, Contests, March, & Hot Boiled Peanuts - South Carolinas' Official #1 snack !!!"
Contests at the event are said to be: Men- Best Rebel yell contest Ladies- Best Dressed Southern Belle and possibly: Best baked down home pie and best baked barbecue.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Trevor Benson only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Trevor Benson is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
All too many modern-day Americans, both northern and southern, are woefully ignorant of the true history of the civil war. I must confess that as someone who went to school in the north I used to be one of those. Thank God for a friend, a reader of original sources, who helped set me on the road to re-education.
Thanks to you also for bringing the obvious back to our conscious attention! :)
Posted By: Levi S. (Southern Nationalist)
Date: 2009-12-16 13:52:09
I enjoyed reading this article and the points you bring out. As a descendent of a Confederate soldier I personaly don't want the monument removed from the grounds because that is a monument to honor many southerners and northerners ancestors. I wish i could be at the rally but unfortunately I live in Texas all the way across the south.
Posted By: Charles Parks, CSA
Date: 2009-12-16 22:05:22
RALLY SC STATE HOUSE www.CSAHPS.com Join us the day the legislators return to speak with them and oppose NAACP HATE BILL H3588 to remove the Battle Flag from the Confederate Soldiers Monument to a museum to appease the racist demands of the NAACP. We need volunteers and help bringing this matter to the attention of the general public - who are unaware this Bill even exists !!!
Sorry, but I cannot understand how a libertarian could support flying the flag of a nation that was founded in order to preserve slavery. This fact alone, destroys the legitimacy of any pretense that the sourtherners made under the name of "self-determination".
Dan, you need to read some original sources (i.e. eye-witness testimony of those in the south, in contrast to northern "historian" hearsay.)
The principal issue of the "war of northern aggression" was states rights... NOT slavery. Primacy of the slave issue is propaganda promoted by the winners of that bloody conflict.
How do libertarians today justify promoting the killing of unborn infants? The human mind can justify all kinds of evil, given half a chance. While slavery has much evil to it, it was not the primary issue of the war.
Speaking of slavery, what do you call it when government takes more than half of your production at the point of a gun? I call that slavery, practiced in the USA since 1913. Don't believe you're a slave? Try not paying income tax and see what happens to you.
States rights are once more coming to the forefront in America... google Dr. Edwin Vieira for a good reference.
I'm sorry, "creator", but states don't have rights -- only human beings, persons, have rights.
And I have read original sources concerning the Civil War. The rulers of the seceding states themselves named the desire to maintain slavery as their primary reason for secession. Some of them put it right in their declaration of secession.
Posted By: Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.
Date: 2009-12-17 09:17:53
Dan, A mind is a terrible thing to waste? Ignorance is a terrible place to be! Alexander Massa is absolutely correct about States Rights within the purview of the United States Constitution.
And slaves represented money to the \"rulers\", as you refer to them as. And, this was the same primary motivation that compelled the Founding Fathers to act, not some high minded \"taxation without representation\". Just as the leaders of the CSA no longer wished to support most of the internal improvements, as provided for in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, neither did the Founders wish to send their money to London.
Just as \"taxation\" was a rallying point among the colonials, so was slavery to the Confederates.
This rally is unlikely to occur, South Carolina House Bill 3588 is an anti-child endangerment bill, not a flag bill. There is no flag bill pending in South Carolina as of 5PM, 17 December, 2009.
Dan, Defending the Confederate Flag is actually quite popular among Libertarians that follow the Austrian School of Economics because we know the true reasons for the war. Try reading "Just War" (you can find it online) written by one of the founders of modern Libertarianism Murray N. Rothbard, or if you'd like to educate yourself on the Libertarian perspective during the war try reading "No Treason" (also online) which was written by the famous Northern abolitionist Lysander Spooner.
And "SOME" Southern States did mention slavery in their Declarations along with many other issues. But slavery was not the main cause of the war as a whole. Also when States' Rights are referred to it's usually just a reference to localism/self-determination/minarchism or just as an opposition to centralization. States' Rights go hand in hard with personal liberty because it's harder to preserve personal liberty in a centralized government then it is in many smaller ones.
The great Classical Libertarian Lord Acton in a letter to Robert E. Lee once said:
"I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."
So, I believe the better question here is how can Libertarians support Statist Lincoln and his totalitarian idea of a forced union? The Union still had slaves from 1861-1865 as well as the CSA. They were really not much different. The Northern Congress even passed the proposed 13th Amendment (also known as the Corwin Amendment) to preserve slavery forever AFTER the South seceded. This also showed that the South's main motive wasn't slavery because if it was they would have rejoined and had enough States to ratify it into law. Then when the US invaded the newly formed Confederacy they passed the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution which specifically said they were not invading because of slavery, and when Lincoln passed the "Emancipation" Proclamation it specifically said slaves were only to be freed in Confederate Territory (a.k.a. territory they had no control over) and not Union territory like the State of Delaware, and Union controlled territory such as the city of New Orleans La.
I believe secession is a very Libertarian principle worth supporting, and you do know that the newly formed US during the American Revolution also had slavery right? Like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington etc... Even with this flaw it doesn't make their cause any less just, and to me this is no different with the formation of the CSA.
Dan, Defending the Confederate Flag is actually quite popular among Libertarians that follow the Austrian School of Economics because we know the true reasons for the war. Try reading "Just War" (you can find it online) written by one of the founders of modern Libertarianism Murray N. Rothbard, or if you'd like to educate yourself on the Libertarian perspective during the war try reading "No Treason" (also online) which was written by the famous Northern abolitionist Lysander Spooner.
And "SOME" Southern States did mention slavery in their Declarations along with many other issues. But slavery was not the main cause of the war as a whole. Also when States' Rights are referred to it's usually just a reference to localism/self-determination/minarchism or just as an opposition to centralization. States' Rights go hand in hard with personal liberty because it's harder to preserve personal liberty in a centralized government then it is in many smaller ones.
The great Classical Libertarian Lord Acton in a letter to Robert E. Lee once said:
"I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."
So, I believe the better question here is how can Libertarians support Statist Lincoln and his totalitarian idea of a forced union? The Union still had slaves from 1861-1865 as well as the CSA. They were really not much different. The Northern Congress even passed the proposed 13th Amendment (also known as the Corwin Amendment) to preserve slavery forever AFTER the South seceded. This also showed that the South's main motive wasn't slavery because if it was they would have rejoined and had enough States to ratify it into law. Then when the US invaded the newly formed Confederacy they passed the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution which specifically said they were not invading because of slavery, and when Lincoln passed the "Emancipation" Proclamation it specifically said slaves were only to be freed in Confederate Territory (a.k.a. territory they had no control over) and not Union territory like the State of Delaware, and Union controlled territory such as the city of New Orleans La.
I believe secession is a very Libertarian principle worth supporting, and you do know that the newly formed US during the American Revolution also had slavery right? Like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington etc... Even with this flaw it doesn't make their cause any less just, and to me this is no different with the formation of the CSA.
Posted By: Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.
Date: 2009-12-26 10:15:54
Adding to Trevor Benson's responce to Dan, which is GREAT, think about this. The Southern States seceded. This is their right. Secession does not equal war. Since there were a lot of yankee newspaper editorials expressing great relief that the Deep South slave States were gone, why was the incoming lincoln regime already contemplating war and a secret plan to provoke it? The 13th Amendment perpetuating involuntary African servitude was already making its way through the halls of Congress. If the preservation of slavery were THE ONLY RATIONALE for secession, why then did not the seceded 7 States declare victory on principle and join back with the U.S.A.? It did not happen, did it? And another thing. Secession of the 7 slave States left 8 slave States still in the U.S.A. If preservation of slavery was why secession happened, why, then, did they all not secede at the same time?
Consider this excerpt from The Men In Gray, page 96:
Appomattox was a triumph of the physically stronger in a conflict between the representatives of two essentially different civilizations and antagonistic ideas of government. On one side in that conflict was the South, led by the descendants of the Cavaliers, who, with all their faults, had inherited from a long line of ancestors a manly contempt for moral littleness, a high sense of honor, a lofty regard for plighted faith, a strong tendency to conservatism, a profound respect for law and order, and an unfaltering loyalty to constitutional government. Against the South was arrayed the power of the North, dominated by the spirit of Puritanism, which, with all its virtues, has ever been characterized by the pharisaism that worships itself and is unable to perceive any goodness apart from itself; which has ever arrogantly held its ideas, its interests, and its will to be higher than fundamental law and covenanted obligations; which has always "lived and moved and had its being" in rebellion against constituted authority; which, with the cry of freedom on its lips, has been one of the most cruel and pitiless tyrants that ever cursed the world; which, while beheading an English king in the name of liberty, brought England under a reign of oppression whose little finger was heavier than the mailed hand of the Stuarts; and which, from the time of Oliver Cromwell to the time of Abraham Lincoln, has never hesitated to trample upon the rights of others in order to effect its own ends. (This last statement has been perpetuated even unto today. JS)
I'm sorry to inform you that although I linked to the site www.csahps.com, I do not design it and I have never had any input in it whatsoever. I don't even know who owns it, so I cannot accept your compliment. Thanks anyways.
Posted By: Mark Stephenson
Date: 2010-01-05 21:40:05
My name is Mark
An I from Chester,S.C.and the FLAG should STAY!!!!!!! If you don't like it don't LOOK!!!!!!!!! And if you LIVE in S.C. and don't LIKE THE FLAG FLYING HIGH THEN MOVE !!!!!!!!!! Its apart of History. MYGreat Great Grandfather was in the WAR !!!!! And I think he would like for it to STAY,AND WHAT IT STAND FOR TO HIM !!! HE DIE FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO LET BE AND GO ON WITH LIFE AND BE SOMEBODY LIKE HE WAS ( HERO )
well the flag means alot to the families that lost loved ones if you dont know the history.so heres a little you blacks or negros african americans whatever yall wanna be called.yall should know your family fought that war years ago so the flag belongs to 13 differnt colonies so the kkk is yalls problem not the flag.need i say more
And there we have it. Tim Ingle's grammtically incomprehensible, racist comment sums up exactly why confederate-battle-flag-worship is long over due for a ignonimous burial.
You've been right all along, Dan. I'm really tired of the Margaret Mitchellesque romanticism that accompanies the defense of the Racist Confederation.
Thats a dead bill from SC 2007-2008 Session. If bills arent passed by the 2nd Thursday in June during the 2nd yr of session, they die. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3588.htm
H3588 of the current 2009-2010 session is about leaving children in a car for more than 5 mins. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/3588.htm
Why protest a 2007-2008 dead bill? Just wondering??
some of the people Trevor who have posted on here dear are apparently ignorant to true Southron history we need to give these people a lesson ini true History.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
