7/28/07

I am A......


CONFEDERATE!!!!

24 comments:

Kim Ling said...

Hello, I don't want to intrude on other people's blogs, but a friend of mine reffered me here and I have a few questions concerning this post. I, being of a different nationality, find the confederate flag to be highly offensive because of its background of racial-related hate and violence. With all due respect, I must ask why you choose to advocate such a degrading symbol, and publicly associate yourself with it.
My sincerest thanks (in advance) for your time,
-Kim

Amber said...

I am curious as to who referred you to here....
I REALLY think you should go into the history of the confederate flag though.
I do not believe that it stands for Slavery and injustice.
Cause that is not what it is.
Don't just listen to one side of the story and go against the other.

Amber

Kim Ling said...

History of the Confederate Flag... We both know that during the civil war, the south rebelled against the union in order to preserve slavery for personal profit. You say that you do not believe that the flag in question stands for slavery and injustice, but the fact that it was used to support the cause of these perverse ideals is known by anyone who knows how to read a history book. You tell me to not just listen to one side of the story, but I have seen no other presented...
Many Thanks for the time taken,
-Kim

Anonymous said...

Did you know that out of the 224 years that slavery was legal in this country, only four of those years did the Confederate Battle Flag fly? And by the way, there were slaves in this country in 1620. What flag flew over the country more than any other flag during those 224 years? It was the Stars and Stripes. It wasn't the Confederate Battle Flag. It was the Stars and Stripes! Why hate and attack the Confederate Flag? I mean, if you want to hate a flag of slavery then you ought to hate the Stars and Stripes! And if you want to hate another flag of slavery, why not hate the British flag? Did you know that England was responsible for taking five million blacks from Africa and selling them to every country under the sun? If you want to hate a flag, why not hate the Dutch flag or the Portuguese flag, or the Spanish flag? They sold slaves. And if you want to hate a flag today, how about hating the Muslim flags because even today the Muslims are still involved in slavery! I mean let's be honest. Now if you want to believe that the War of 1861 to 1865 was over slavery, I can show you two things that ought to forever correct your thinking in that area: The War was not over slavery. Slavery has only been made an issue by the liberal revisionists. It was not an issue. Let me prove to you just by two simple statements. I will give you more, but let me prove to you that the War was not fought over slavery, and therefore, this flag could never ever have represented slavery. You see Abraham Lincoln proposed a thirteenth amendment in March of 1861. It is the only proposed constitutional amendment that was signed by a sitting President. It bears Abraham Lincoln's signature. Here was Abraham Lincoln's proposed thirteenth amendment: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person's held to labor or service by laws of said State." Did you hear that? Lincoln's proposed thirteenth amendment said Congress shall not have the power to interfere with any institutions within any state including those held to labor or service by the laws of that State. In other words, what Abraham Lincoln was saying to the South, if you will accept this proposed thirteenth amendment, you may forever keep slaves. Folks, Beauregard never fired on Fort Sumter until April 9. This was in March of 1861! If the War had been about slavery and if the South wanted just to keep slaves and that was it, why fire a gun? Why fire a shot? Just simply accept his proposed thirteenth amendment and it would all be over. This resolution was passed unanimously by Congress on July 23, 1861. You may read it for yourself in the Congressional Record. Here is what this resolution says: "The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union." Congress said the War is not about slavery! I will even give you a thirteenth amendment that will allow you to make slavery permanent.

Amber said...

TY Anonymous!
Amber

Kim Ling said...

This is better... I seem to be corresponding with someone knowlegeable on the subject now...
I will answer each statement posed, one at a time, in order.




"Did you know that out of the 224 years that slavery was legal in this country, only four of those years did the Confederate Battle Flag fly?"


However true this may be, we are discussing the Confederate Battle flag at this time. Regardless of how long it did or did not fly, representing the ardour with which the south defended slavery, it did exist, and was associated with the quest to preserve slavery.



"And by the way, there were slaves in this country in 1620. What flag flew over the country more than any other flag during those 224 years? It was the Stars and Stripes. It wasn't the Confederate Battle Flag."



Sadly, this is true. The stars and stripes flew over american slave ships transporting these degraded beings between africa and the colonies.



"It was the Stars and Stripes! Why hate and attack the Confederate Flag? I mean, if you want to hate a flag of slavery then you ought to hate the Stars and Stripes! And if you want to hate another flag of slavery, why not hate the British flag?"


I must ask you to go back and re-read that statement... The stars and stripes no longer condone slavery! Although at one time the may have done so, currently they stand for freedom and democracy. No, I will not hate the stars and stripes for something they do not stand for.



"Did you know that England was responsible for taking five million blacks from Africa and selling them to every country under the sun? If you want to hate a flag, why not hate the Dutch flag or the Portuguese flag, or the Spanish flag? They sold slaves. And if you want to hate a flag today, how about hating the Muslim flags because even today the Muslims are still involved in slavery! I mean let's be honest."



You accuse me of "wanting to hate a flag".
We are not talking about the muslim, spanish, portugese, dutch, or any other flag; the orginal comment dealt soley with the confederate battle flag. Let's keep the discussion on topic.

As for the rest of the latest comment (the proposed thirteenth amendment info.)

However fortunate or unfortunate, the proposed thirteenth amendment that you speak of was NOT ratified. However, it does contradict your prevailing arguement, that the war was not over slavery. This proposed thirteenth amendment dealt, as admitted by you, with what? Slavery.
Many legal matters at this time hinged on the slavery issue. Consider this exerpt from Lincoln's New Haven Speech, for example; "this question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present"
Take for instance as well, the Crittendon Compromise, one of the final attempts to prevent this war, which dealt SOLEY with slavery issues.
In conclusion, I regret to say that your unratified proposed thirteenth amendment, as well as the cited resolution of July 23, 1861, fall far short of proving that the war was NOT, in fact, over slavery.
Many Thanks for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you again.
-Kim

btw, do you have a name at all? If it is not too much trouble, I would like to know the name of the person with whom I correspond.

Anonymous said...

My Dearest Kim,

The Confederate Battle Flag is not a racist symbol and it never has been.

But, now wait, if you want racism, if you want hatred, if you want white supremacy, I will tell you where to find it - under the Stars and Stripes, the U.S. Flag. Not under the Confederate Flag. Do you realize the Emancipation Proclamation was signed on January 1, 1863? On August 14, 1862, less than five months before the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, Abraham Lincoln invited a number of leading blacks to the White House to give them his words of wisdom and to demonstrate to them why he was attempting to colonize them back in Africa. By the way, Lincoln's Negro policy was to send them all back to Africa. That was his policy. William Seward, William Stanton, all of them wanted the same thing. And so he invited these Negroes to come to the White House to hear his words of wisdom, and I am quoting verbatim what Lincoln said. He says, "Why should people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is perhaps the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss. But this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. You are free men here I suppose. Perhaps you have been long free, all of your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people, but even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with a white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race." - Abraham Lincoln. Let me translate that: Blacks aren't equal to Whites, never will be. That is what he just got through saying. Look to what Lincoln said in a speech in Charleston, Illinois, 1858. Lincoln said, "I am not now nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or the political equality of a White and Black races. I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man." - Abraham Lincoln. You see the Confederate flag has never stood as a racist symbol. If you want racism, you go to the Stars and Stripes. In the South, although there was separation, the blacks respected the whites and the whites respected the blacks. And I will tell you this, there was no trouble in the South back then nor in the 1960's until the North came down and started stirring up trouble. So the Confederate flag is not a racist flag. Secondly, the Confederate flag is not a flag of slavery. It does not represent slavery. There was not one slave ever brought into this country under the Confederate flag. Every slave that was brought into this country was brought in by Northern ships under the Stars and Stripes. There was not even a slave brought into this country on a Southern vessel! The slaves were brought into this country on Northern vessels under the Stars and Stripes.

Just thought I would give you some more to brake down.

-Bonnie B

liberty said...

May I ask who anonymous is? If you don't want to sign your name would you at least give your initials?

liberty said...

"We both know that during the civil war, the south rebelled against the union in order to preserve slavery for personal profit."

No, I don't know that, because it is not true. How could the South have suceeded in order to protect slavery if there was no threat against slavery? Lincoln (the upcoming president) had already made it known that he had no intent either directly or indirectly to interfere with slavery.

"You say that you do not believe that the flag in question stands for slavery and injustice, but the fact that it was used to support the cause of these perverse ideals is known by anyone who knows how to read a history book."

I read my history book, and in fact I find this statement to be false also! Isn't this what anonymous was trying to bring out? Here you are condemning the Confederate flag for it's "support" of slavery, but as it was already stated, did not the American flag fly over many more slave ships than ever the Confederate flag did? So if you condemn one, you have to condemn the other.

liberty said...

btw, for those of you who might get confused about my last comment it was written to kim ling about his August 26, 2007 6:07 PM comment.

Kim Ling said...

Bonnie B, I prefer not to argue against John Weaver any more... I'll argue against you, but not against copied and pasted messages.
Thanks for your time...
-Kim

Kim Ling said...

Liberty, I beg to differ concerning you statements...


" How could the South have suceeded in order to protect slavery if there was no threat against slavery? Lincoln (the upcoming president) had already made it known that he had no intent either directly or indirectly to interfere with slavery."

I must refer you to the quote that I gave you earlier that you seem to ignore... You claim that Lincoln had no intent to interfere with slavery at all; how then do you explain away this:
"this question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present" -Abraham Lincoln
and, following his ascension to office of President, the emancipation proclomation?
I am afraid that you are confused as to how large a part of the war was composed of slavery related issues.




"I read my history book, and in fact I find this statement to be false also! Isn't this what anonymous was trying to bring out? Here you are condemning the Confederate flag for it's "support" of slavery, but as it was already stated, did not the American flag fly over many more slave ships than ever the Confederate flag did? So if you condemn one, you have to condemn the other."


First, I already responded to this statement. THE AMERICAN FLAG NO LONGER SUPPORTS SLAVERY! It saw its error and changed its ways!
So no, I do not have to condemn the american flag.

Secondly, you do admit that the confederate battle flag was associated with slavery by stating,yourself, that the flag in question did indeed fly over slave ships.
Many Thanks for your time,
-Kim

Anonymous said...

Kim said-"Bonnie B, I prefer not to argue against John Weaver any more... I'll argue against you, but not against copied and pasted messages."

so Kim you will not argue against John Weaver???

Is that because you know he is right, and you know that he knows where he stands,and you know he is not going to get in on all this, and that you maybe can twist what these girls are saying, and mess them all up on what they believe.

I would have to say that you are a false prophet, also known as a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

William F. Sherwin

Kim Ling said...

William F. Sherwin,
I choose not to argue against John Weaver simply because I am curious as to what the author of the original post believes concerning this flag. You accuse me of asking questions and stating facts so that I "can twist what these girls are saying, and mess them all up on what they believe."
May I ask what portion of my comments lead you to make such an accusation?


I would have to say that you are a false prophet, also known as a "wolf in sheep's clothing."


If I may be so bold, I would also ask for an explanation concerning this charge.


All I want to do is make one think...

Anonymous said...

"May I ask what portion of my comments lead you to make such an accusation?"

To tell the truth all of them.

"If I may be so bold, I would also ask for an explanation concerning this charge."

No, and yes.
I simply stated that wrong.
What I meant to say was, that you may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, or you could be a sheep in wolves clothing.
That is all, I am sorry that I did not say that right, for some could take it the wrong way.

In much thought-William F. Sherwin

Anonymous said...

Did not someone say this:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Come to think of it, I do know.
It was the Lord Jesus Christ.

jimmy said...

Excuse my stupidity, but I have a question to pose. To what part of this discussion does that particular part of the verse apply to?

Anonymous said...

Well jimmy- the part that is MaryBeth is my friend and I'll stand up for her when she needs me to, no matter "who" it is I am to stand against...

jimmy said...

" How could the South have suceeded in order to protect slavery if there was no threat against slavery? Lincoln (the upcoming president) had already made it known that he had no intent either directly or indirectly to interfere with slavery."

I must refer you to the quote that I gave you earlier that you seem to ignore... You claim that Lincoln had no intent to interfere with slavery at all; how then do you explain away this:
"this question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present"


I find this bit of discussion interesting, which compells me to ask a few questions of both liberty and Kim Ling.
First, for liberty, I didn't know the South 'succeeded' at any time, for any cause. Could you enlighten me as to when this happened and why?
Now, for Kim, Liberty is not claiming that 'Lincoln had no intent to interfere with slavery.' He/She is qouting him in her statement (refer to Lincoln's inaugural speech of 3/4/1861)!
While the question of slavery might well have been, and almost certainly was, one of the most discussed issues of the day, the statement that you gave from the president proves absolutely NOTHING concerning how it was to be handled, and whether or not the President would interfere.
Moving on to your next request for explanation of the emancipation proclomation, I assume that you are aware of the fact that the proclomation was not issued until Jan. 1, 1863, long after the war had begun. For which reason I would ask you to seriously reconsider the role that slavery played in the Civil War, or produce evidence that actually points to your conclusion.

I might also ask at this time, what do you find to be so terribly offensive about slavery? It has existed for thousands of years, and will likely continue until the world ends.
-Jimmy

Kim Ling said...

what do you find to be so terribly offensive about slavery? It has existed for thousands of years, and will likely continue until the world ends.

I never so much as imagined that I would ever see a society in the United States of America, the land of the free, that would dare to make such an outrageous statement (or suggestion)! That question is not deserving of an answer. A practice that degrades human beings, 'allowing' one man to 'own' another is an outrageous assult on the fundamental principle that all men are created equal.
-Kim

jimmy said...

Kim, Having noted that this is the only part of my entire post that you responded to, I will further explain myself on the issue that you choose to challenge.


"I never so much as imagined that I would ever see a society in the United States of America, the land of the free, that would dare to make such an outrageous statement (or suggestion)! That question is not deserving of an answer."



May I inquire as to why you answered it then?



"A practice that degrades human beings, 'allowing' one man to 'own' another is an outrageous assult on the fundamental principle that all men are created equal."



May I kindly request a definition of a 'fundamental principle'? What in the world makes something inherently right or wrong?? What creates a 'fundamental'??
This is opened up for ANYONE to answer...

Hope to hear from somebody soon.

Coco Anthony said...

Getting Cheap Ugg Outlet considerable rate UGG Upside Boots, with UGG Boots equally foot with UGG 5918 Sundance Boots shorts or even Cheap UGG Boots pants are fairly fashion UGG Boots sale! uggs inexpensive tips: UGG Boots on sale are ugly acronym UGG Accessories, Unsightly footwear, this UGG Adirondack 5469 Boots particular tiny recognized about UGG 5498 Adirondack Tall Boots this! nationwide UGG Ashur 5760 Boots store boots as UGG 5728 Sundance Limited Edition Chestnut Boots well as UGG Ashur Tall Boots snow is uncommon, pretty numerous UGG Bailey Button Boots mm are utilizing UGG 5592 Brookfield Short Boots the method to be sure that UGG Brookfield Tall Buty Boots abroad purchasers UGG Sunburst Tall 5218 Boots benefiting UGG Broome 5511 Boots from well-known globally UGG Chrysite 5512 Boots brand name UGG Classic Cardy Boots brand name create Uggs

Coco Anthony said...

the UGG 5854 Classic Mini Boots actual UGG within the UGG 3060 Classic Mini Kimono Boots web are some affordable UGG Classic Short Boots non-authentic, UGG Swell Tall Bootsrelaxing and cozy UGG 3161 Classic Short Sparkles Boots organic and natural as well as UGG Classic Tall Boots organic and natural to poor UGG 3063 Classic Tall Kimono Boots more. UGG Ultra Tall 5245 Boots Leopard UGG craze this UGG Corinth Boots 5756 period of your time of your UGG Dauphine 5741 Boots energy is actually truly UGG 5750 Desoto Boots fairly receptive UGG Elsey 5596 Boots inexpensive UGG Ultra Short Boots 5225. Light tan UGG Felicity 5450 Boots, brown and darkish tend to be the UGG Fluff 5304 Boots majority of likely UGG 5531 Fox Boots probably the most normal UGG 8686 Fox Hair Boots near to in the direction of UGG 5749 Gaviota Boots the 3 models, the exterior UGG Gissella 5593 Boots layer near to in the direction UGG 5765 Highkoo Boots of the UGG Jimmy Choo Boots genuine UGG 5835 Tassel Boots UGG sheepskin sheepskin UGG Kensington 5678 Boots may soak up wetness UGG Kids Boots considerably UGG 5899 Womens Sheepskin Boots much better UGG Knightsbridge 5119 Boots than 100 % cotton UGG Knit Boots, functions UGG Ultimate Boots, the within UGG 5181 Kona Boots layer had been cashmere UGG Langley Boots cashmere consists of lanolin UGG Liberty 5509 Boots person getting

Coco Anthony said...

as well as UGG Mayfaire 5116 Boots protect dermis getting UGG Nightfall 5359 Boots a germicidal effect, and UGG 5597 Boots Oliviya is made of woll pads and UGG Original Sundance 5605 Boots lightweight rubber lone UGG Payton 5654 Boots design, but in add-on to Ugg Peony Boots 5801 produce footwear with terrific UGG 1895 Retro Cargo Boots frost opposition as well as UGG Roseberry Boots 5734 non-slip effect. Uggs and UGG Sandra 5449 Boots exceptional wood UGG 5650 Scuff Romeo Boots design as well as UGG Seline 5595 Boots pattern that permits the UGG Seline Buty Boots actual foot to preserve UGG Sheepskin Boots 1875 temperatures ugg boots UGG 5125 Sheepskin Slippers inexpensive from 25 degrees UGG Shoes Celsius, cozy UGG 5816 Siennar Miller Boots as well as UGG Slippers calming wearing UGG 5733 Suburb Crochet Tall Boots.