continued ...

> Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with
> these laws. This stone which was
> rejected by the first builders “is
> become the chief of the corner” the
> real “corner-stone” in our new
> edifice. I have been asked, what of
> the future? It has been apprehended by
> some that we would have arrayed
> against us the civilized world. I care
> not who or how many they may be
> against us, when we stand upon the
> eternal principles of truth, if we are
> true to ourselves and the principles
> for which we contend, we are obliged
> to, and must triumph.
>
> Thousands of people who begin to
> understand these truths are not yet
> completely out of the shell; they do
> not see them in their length and
> breadth. We hear much of the
> civilization and Christianization of
> the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my
> judgment, those ends will never be
> attained, but by first teaching them
> the lesson taught to Adam, that “in
> the sweat of his brow he should eat
> his bread,” and teaching them to work,
> and feed, and clothe themselves.

At the risk of really ticking billjackson off, someone just reminded me about [Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' 1861 speech][1] in Savannah explaining the causes of the Civil War. Here's part of it:

>"In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

>"As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else."

[1]: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/libr…

Bill, you're not even being logical. The insistence that we can't possibly remove the Confederate emblem from our flag of today and keep it in a museum IS living in the past. And many of the same people who will argue until they're blue in the face that the Civil War wasn't about slavery will argue that an homage to that war should stay in our taxpayer-funded flag. It makes no sense.

Now, if you understand that the Civil War was fought over slavery and still don't care that its emblem continues to be in our state flag, then at least we know you're not operating from a place of ignorance. I'm not sure that makes you look better, but to each his own.

And most people haven't seen or studied them, Bill, and many go around making dumbass comments that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Look in my eyes, Bill: You don't tell me what to do. And I will post what I want whenever I want on my site, no matter how much you wish I wouldn't. Capiche?

No, Bill, not everyone gets it. I'm surprised you do based on your commenting history here. And perhaps you don't get that you don't get to tell me to "stop" doing anything. It's funny to watch you try to exercise some sort of privilege over me, though. Y'all make me chuckle with that brand of audacity.

From South Carolina Declaration of Secession:

> "We affirm that these ends for which
> this Government was instituted have
> been defeated, and the Government
> itself has been made destructive of
> them by the action of the
> non-slaveholding States. Those States
> have assume the right of deciding upon
> the propriety of our domestic
> institutions; and have denied the
> rights of property established in
> fifteen of the States and recognized
> by the Constitution; they have
> denounced as sinful the institution of
> slavery; they have permitted open
> establishment among them of societies,
> whose avowed object is to disturb the
> peace and to eloign the property of
> the citizens of other States. They
> have encouraged and assisted thousands
> of our slaves to leave their homes;
> and those who remain, have been
> incited by emissaries, books and
> pictures to servile insurrection.
>
> "For twenty-five years this agitation
> has been steadily increasing, until it
> has now secured to its aid the power
> of the common Government. Observing
> the forms of the Constitution, a
> sectional party has found within that
> Article establishing the Executive
> Department, the means of subverting
> the Constitution itself. A
> geographical line has been drawn
> across the Union, and all the States
> north of that line have united in the
> election of a man to the high office
> of President of the United States,
> whose opinions and purposes are
> hostile to slavery. He is to be
> entrusted with the administration of
> the common Government, because he has
> declared that that "Government cannot
> endure permanently half slave, half
> free," and that the public mind must
> rest in the belief that slavery is in
> the course of ultimate extinction.
>
> "This sectional combination for the
> submersion of the Constitution, has
> been aided in some of the States by
> elevating to citizenship, persons who,
> by the supreme law of the land, are
> incapable of becoming citizens; and
> their votes have been used to
> inaugurate a new policy, hostile to
> the South, and destructive of its
> beliefs and safety.
>
> "On the 4th day of March next, this
> party will take possession of the
> Government. It has announced that the
> South shall be excluded from the
> common territory, that the judicial
> tribunals shall be made sectional, and
> that a war must be waged against
> slavery until it shall cease
> throughout the United States."

Here's a bonus [money quote from the Texas Declaration of Secession][1]. It's hard to put this kind of nasty horse back into the revisionist barn, no?

> In view of these and many other facts,
> it is meet that our own views should
> be distinctly proclaimed.
>
> We hold as undeniable truths that the
> governments of the various States, and
> of the confederacy itself, were
> established exclusively by the white
> race, for themselves and their
> posterity; that the African race had
> no agency in their establishment; that
> they were rightfully held and regarded
> as an inferior and dependent race, and
> in that condition only could their
> existence in this country be rendered
> beneficial or tolerable.
>
> That in this free government all white
> men are and of right ought to be
> entitled to equal civil and political
> rights; that the servitude of the
> African race, as existing in these
> States, is mutually beneficial to both
> bond and free, and is abundantly
> authorized and justified by the
> experience of mankind, and the
> revealed will of the Almighty Creator,
> as recognized by all Christian
> nations; while the destruction of the
> existing relations between the two
> races, as advocated by our sectional
> enemies, would bring inevitable
> calamities upon both and desolation
> upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

Don't you just love when someone tells you that the Confederacy and the Civil War (and, thus, its flag) had nothing to do with slavery, race or racism? They wrote stuff down then, too, you know.

[1]: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_de…

js, again, trying to refute an opinion columnist (who, in this case, happens to be a very good journalist) but complaining that he is voicing an opinion is rather counterproductive and a bit silly.

As for Nissan employees, [we ran a large cover story with employees quoted in there][1]. Certainly, there are employees who want to unionize even if no one has walked up to you and told you that.

[1]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/20…

I'm actually pretty neutral on this topic, js, but a point needs to be made: You seem to be doing the opposite of what you accuse Joe of doing. Believing one side and not the other. It's something humans do all the time, and that's not really the definition of hypocrisy.

The point is to build a good case and convince people. The above is an opinion column. If you don't agree with it, try building your own case. That's how it works.

Nice post, js. You and I are going to end up somewhere yet, holding hands and singing "We Shall Overcome." ;-)

The irony about the assumption that I'm a "Yankee liberal," many actual yankees considered me too moderate, or even conservative, for their tastes when I lived up that way. I seem to remember somebody calling me a "moderate-right yuppie" at one point in print.

Everything is so relative. But we should at least all be able to agree on the stupidity of keeping that flag flying on the public's dime in the 21st century; just pick a reason. Especially the libertarians in our midst.