Man o man can san completely misunderstand the simplest post..!To quote bugs bunny..,"what a maroon!"

DaveS:

Is it possible that San is the ghost of Ignatius J. Reilly?

HA! I've thought that too! He's always making an ass of himself in the faith-based fray--in much the same manner one might imagine of Ignatius. I've seen him reference Boethius more than once, as well...

Is it possible that San is the ghost of Ignatius J. Reilly?

Not at all, but that has not prevented a confederacy of dunces from posting their shrill and hysterical protests.

Sometimes I agree with Hitchens, especially when the topic is religion, but he totally missed this one, perhaps because his outsider perspective does not always allow him a more clear viewpoint. Also, for the record, I am not a Huckabee supporter.

Slavery was never a reason that the American Civil War was fought, no matter what BS the current revisionist historians would like to propagate. Tariffs, taxes, northern industrialism vs southern agriculturalism, the limits of federal power vs states rights were the reasons.

Hitchens made a point of mentioning southerners/Confederates and "their flag," but he should have noted that the PC leftist media and black militants now believe that they own the rights to the battle flag, and should be able to decide where and when it should/should not fly, according to the racist symbolism that they have assigned to it, no matter what its original meaning may have been. A lingering side effect of the 1960's civil rights movement was a vilification of southern icons, including the battle flag.

If my great grandfather fought/died under that flag for what he believed and some racist blacks and pandering whites in the mainstream media told me that it had to come down because they had assigned their own meaning to it, I would also encourage them to engage in a flagpole colonoscopy.

The demonification of the battle flag, and its use by blacks and the left as a weapon to beat up on whites and the south is a relatively recent invention. BTW: Remember "Dukes of Hazzard?" The car was named General Lee and painted entirely with the image of the Confederate Battle Flag, yet no racism was ever evident on the show, nor did the rabble rise up in protest.

If a group of American's today took up arms with the intent of secession, what would you call them?

When this area once again became a part of the union, what would you think when their children still flew the battle flag they used while killing hundreds of thousands of Americans?

Regardless of the groups reasons for secession, do you understand how a race of people enslaved by the group could be offended by this flag being raised?

It seems stranger to me that loyal citizens of the United States of America would still want to fly the flag at all.

"If a group of American's today took up arms with the intent of secession, what would you call them?"

Thomas Jefferson would have stated that they were doing their civic duty.

He said a rebellion is good for Democracy.

"When this area once again became a part of the union, what would you think when their children still flew the battle flag they used while killing hundreds of thousands of Americans?"

I don't know, you tell me with you flying the U.S. flag that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, killed people for not going with the draft, killed people in the Revolutionary war, Spanish American war, WW1, WW2, Korea, etc etc.

I love it when people try to distill the inherent racism of the Civil War into nothing more than a bid for economic independence, especialy but not limited to the fact that that same independence was based on blatant underlying racism that most of the developed world had long ago given up.

Or do these same people also believe that slaves in the US were better off as slaves here than free in their home countries?

"Regardless of the groups reasons for secession, do you understand how a race of people enslaved by the group could be offended by this flag being raised?"

I don't know, do they have a problem with the US flag, because they were the ones who established the slavery to begin with?

So let me just make sure I understand all of your recent posts, and I'll recap them in question form so you don't think I'm committing libel:

You think we should have more military rebellions in this country? Or were you just quoting Jefferson for the hell of it?

You believe the that the Union wanted to continue slavery on an equal level with the Confederacy?

Thanks, San-I-Am, I really needed a good laugh.

You write: “It wasn't about slavery. . . .It was about the North industrial system moving funds towards the north and making laws that made it harder for the Southern agricultural system to compete. It was about trade laws and the rest that made it costly for Southerners to live.”

So, if the core of the Old South’s economic system was founded upon whites profiting from the exploitation of slave labor--which required more than two centuries of extensive legal, political, social, religious and economic structures to subjugate, decimate and dehumanize black Africans—how the fuck can it NOT be about slavery?

Hmmm. Abolishing slavery would have “made it harder for the Southern agricultural system to compete” and more “costly for Southerners to live.” Ain’t life a bitch?

If a group of American's today took up arms with the intent of secession, what would you call them?

Depends on why they were doing it. Considering the nonstop incompetence, corruption, and criminality prevalent within the federal government I just might call them "brother or patriot."

When this area once again became a part of the union, what would you think when their children still flew the battle flag they used while killing hundreds of thousands of Americans?

Who's to say they'd lose? If they fought and died for what they believed to be right, then who am I to tell them that their symbol is prohibited?

I love it when people try to distill the inherent racism of the Civil War into nothing more than a bid for economic independence, especialy but not limited to the fact that that same independence was based on blatant underlying racism that most of the developed world had long ago given up.

Even though this sentence is largely nonsensical, I will attempt to address it. The American Civil War was not fought over slavery, no matter how loud you shout and how high you jump up and down, it was driven by money and power just like all war and politics always have been. You may have been taught this in school, but it's still not true, there's a lot of revisionist history being sold as truth out there (my favorite is "blacks built America.") The rest of your sentence makes no sense so I'll just have to let it go.

"You think we should have more military rebellions in this country? Or were you just quoting Jefferson for the hell of it?"

Learn to read.

It was implied that they were traitors by rebelling. The Constitution doesn't think so, nor did many of our Founding Fathers.

Martin Luther King Jr rebelled. He wasn't a traitor.

"So, if the core of the Old South’s economic system was founded upon whites profiting from the exploitation of slave"

ERNT, it wasn't.

Sorry, but you are an idiot.

The vast majority of people in the South didn't own slaves, and slaves tended to cost more than normal farm hands.

An entire economic system at the time was dependent on slavery. Even if the war was fought without any battles over the moral implications of slavery, slavery was absolutely one of the elements of the war. The North intended to impede on the South's unpaid labor. The South depended economically on this labor. The situation was more complex than that, but if you agree with those two statements, how can you say the war was about money and yet had nothing to do with slavery?

So how do you decide who to call a traitor an who to call a rebel? I know the answer could just be"it depends on who wins", but what do you actually think?

You seem to be making an analogy between MLK and armed uprisings, so I'm wondering what form of rebellion you feel is acceptable.