The Stars And Bars Caused That Lunatic To Murder Christians?


You know, I’m pretty ambivalent about whether or not South Carolina should or shouldn’t have the Stars and Bars waving in their capitol.  As I’m not from the south, and my ancestors fought on the side of the North, I don’t have much of a dog in this discussion. 

However, as an American, I do have a special interest in making sure the Stars and Bars are preserved and in the forefront of America’s consciousness. 

Quite frankly, I’m appalled at the lack of historical understanding of the Civil War, even at its most fundamental causes.  And, I’m more appalled at the reality disconnect reaction to the recent savage murders in South Carolina. 

To be sure, the slavery question was very prominent towards the animus between the North and the South.  But, the question of slavery wasn’t the cause of the war.  On both sides, both North and South, most knew that the institution of slavery was a dying issue.  Abraham Lincoln had argued this on more than one occasion.  This is mostly because of the advent of the cotton gin, which was patented in 1794.   It was fought because of what was, and still is, the differences between rural America’s and urban America’s view on governing this land.  That is, the question as to where the ultimate sovereignty lay. 

By 1860, good American Christians had already confined the institution of slavery.  Indeed, my home state, Kansas, pretty much settled the question of slavery expansion.  Slave trade from Africa was already ended.   

Fort Sumter was taken in April of 1861.  Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation wasn’t delivered until January of 1863.  The overwhelming majority of people who fought on the side of the South owned no slaves, and had no intentions of ever owning slaves.  History revisionists can babble and bunch of bs towards the question, and again, it was a prominent issue, but, it’s difficult impossible to say the war was fought over the slavery question when the people who fought it had no prospects nor intentions of ever owning slaves.  Again, the Emancipation Proclamation was delivered nearly 2 years after the war had already started.

There is nothing more deplorable than the notion of allowing people to own other people, save a mass murder of fellow Christians in a church, praying for lost souls such as the animal who perpetrated such an atrocity. 

But, when I read about the demand to bring down the Stars and Bars, I have to wonder if there are people out there who actually believe this will alleviate any pain the loved ones of murdered?  Do people actually believe this may prevent more animals such as Roof?

If it be the will of the people, by all means, bring it down!  Lay it low!  But, bring it down in understanding of what it really was, not, in what you were made to believe it is.  But, most of all, as you’re bringing it down, understand that the act will do absolutely nothing towards preventing another atrocity like what happened in Charleston. 


Addendum:  I think I’ve come to understand why this is so important to the rent-a-mob people ….

Today, it’s chic to be an anti-establishment anarchist …..or, a rebel, if you will.  You can’t very well be a rebel if one of the emblems for individual and states rights is the rebel flag.  So, it must be destroyed. 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to The Stars And Bars Caused That Lunatic To Murder Christians?

  1. gator69 says:

    Racism had nothing to do with the murders in Charleston. I know many racists, and none of them would have done what Roof did. Hate, insanity, and lack of moral grounding were the cause of the murders in Charleston. And what pushed Roof over the edge is yet another story.

    More to follow, I’m busy grilling tonight and I welcome this discussion, especially when I have more time.

    Love one another.

    • suyts says:

      It was prolly the Stars and Bars ….. that’s what dunnit!!!!

      • gator69 says:

        Say goodbye to the General Lee as you’ve always known it.

        In the wake of the deadly South Carolina shooting and the decision by several major retailers to stop selling merchandise featuring the Confederate battle flag, the toy spawned by the hit TV series “Dukes of Hazzard” that became a Southern icon wearing those colors will no longer be produced.

        While the car hasn’t been in front of a camera since 2007 — a direct-to-video sequel of the 2005 movie starring Johnny Knoxville — the General Lee remains a popular die-cast and model toy, widely available online. (One of the original cars used in the series sold for $110,000 at auction in 2012 to PGA golfer Bubba Watson.)

        Following the move by Walmart, Amazon, eBay and others, and the steps by political leaders in South Carolina, Virginia and elsewhere to remove the flag from state capitols and license plates, Yahoo Autos reached out to Warner Bros. Consumer Products, the branch of the movie studio that licenses toys from the series, asking about the General Lee’s status. This was the official reply:

        “Warner Bros. Consumer Products has one licensee producing die-cast replicas and vehicle model kits featuring the General Lee with the confederate flag on its roof–as it was seen in the TV series. We have elected to cease the licensing of these product categories.”

        I guess the “General Ban Ki-moon” will be sporting a UN flag from now on. Next up will be Daisy’s dukes…

      • cdquarles says:

        Strictly speaking, James, that’s one of the Battle Flags you’re showing, not the Stars and Bars = the first Confederate ‘National’ Flag. That one looks similar to Old Glory, especially given the fewer stars there would have been in the 1860s; and it was too similar that soldiers could get confused in the ‘fog of battle’.

    • squid2112 says:

      Actually, I would encourage you to do a little research into what has been common amongst almost every single mass murder of this type, since the mid 1980’s. There is but one commonality among all of them, and it most certainly has nothing to do with racism. Oh, but we won’t talk about the real cause, because, well, that doesn’t further the various agendas.

      I have this week, been eye opened to just how absolutely imbecilic and moronic a great number of my fellow Americans really are. On one hand it scares me to death, on the other it leaves me in wonder how some can even feed themselves (the rest are fed by the rest of us).

      • gator69 says:

        I have already done the research, and then some. I wish we were allowed to talk about all of the problems, then maybe we could solve them. Until then, we can expect more and more problems.

        PC is killing us.

  2. HankH says:

    You’re right, James. Anyone who thinks the civil war was started over slavery, hatred, white supremacy, or any other selfish motive is driven by blind ideology and historical ignorance. The flag’s design itself tells the whole story.

    There’s 13 stars, representing the original 13 colonies (of the North) inside a big blue “X,” symbolizing that the Southern states wanted to be counted out of belonging to the Union formed by those 13 states. In other words, crossing out what doesn’t belong. The issue was the state’s right to self govern. The Confederate states felt that the Union government was overreaching threatening to usurp their right.

    While I don’t think the wrong side won, it’s pretty evident we didn’t learn anything from it.

    • cdquarles says:

      Um, that ‘x’ is the Cross of St. Andrews, If I’m remembering correctly. See the flag of the State of Alabama. It is white with a red St. Andrew’s Cross:

      • HankH says:

        Yes, it is in the shape of the Saltire which tradition holds was one of several shapes of the Crucifix and a banner St. Andrew was said to display when he preached. The Saltire appearing on the flag may very well have been designed as heraldic symbolism. If so, then it seems the Confederation may have been making a statement about their Christianity, or merely going with a design familiar with the artist, which I find as plausible as X’ing something out.

  3. HankH says:

    You can’t very well be a rebel if one of the emblems for individual and states rights is the rebel flag. So, it must be destroyed.

    And it gets even more stooooopid! Senator Reid now wants UNLV to change their mascot’s name “Rebels” to something more politically correct and less offensive.

    Malaysia: Teacher demand non-Muslim students to drink their urine during Ramadan
    Posted on June 22, 2015 by ADMIN 3 Comments
    5 Votes

    Ministry investigates claims that non-Muslim students asked to drink urine

    BY ELIZABETH ZACHARIAH, Malaysian Insider
    Published: 22 June 2015 3:03 PM

  5. Jason Calley says:

    “Again, the Emancipation Proclamation was delivered nearly 2 years after the war had already started.”

    And even then, the Emancipation Proclamation was written to only free the slaves who were not in Union controlled territory. In other words, any slaves in the Union states (and yes, some of the slave states remained in the Union) were still slaves. Any slaves in Confederate territory which had already fallen to the Union army remained slaves. Only the slaves in Confederate territory which was outside of Union control were freed. The EP even carefully lists which counties are affected.

    • gator69 says:

      And at the risk of repeating myself, The first slave owner in the coloines was a black man, and many blacks owned slaves. Slavery is as old as civilization, and probably older. Slavery does not have a color or race.

      According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.

      Prior to 1655 there were no legal slaves in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.

      Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.

      When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.

      Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.

      Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.

      By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection.” Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa.

      Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.

      However, black slave owners continued to thrive in the United States.

      By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

      In 1830, a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more.

      According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states.

      Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. Black Duke University professor John Hope Franklin recorded that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

      In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation.

      Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000.

      In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860, 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners.

      (Source: Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984.)

      Fact 5: In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the US census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

      The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

      The figures show conclusively that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters in pre-Civil War America. The statistics outlined above show that about 28 percent of free blacks owned slaves—as opposed to less than 4.8 percent of southern whites, and dramatically more than the 1.4 percent of all white Americans who owned slaves.

  6. Latitude says:

    We are doing a great disservice to everyone….

    But I”m sick and tired of this flag crap! I am southern, and that flag is part of my history…that has nothing to do with racism

    • cdquarles says:

      I’m a Southerner also, and yes, that flag didn’t really have anything to do with racism directly. It was used by some racists for their own agenda.

      • DirkH says:

        The Left’s wish is to control history rewriting and outlaw any expression they like to outlaw. Also, distract from the catastrophic state of the Obama Recovery with anything they can find.
        Tomorrow they’ll trot out some homosexual again.

        • They should replace the ”stars and bars flag” with ”hammer and sickle” in the People’s Republic of the United States; to make Obama happy…?!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s