Here is the TEXT of the Medved’s commentary… but this is key:
First, the estimated 6,000 African-Americans who did fight for the Confederacy were mostly slaves, and forced to do so—many deserted when the Confiscation Acts and Emancipation Proclamation offered freedom to those who crossed Union lines. Second, black soldiers represented less than 1 percent of the 750,000 white Confederates—and a tiny fraction of the 200,000 blacks who served the Union military.
Here is the main problem of the monument proposed in South Carolina… there were no blacks that fought for the confederacy in SC:
At a time when people are battling over whether to take down Confederate War statues and memorials, a pair of state lawmakers in South Carolina want to put one up.
And it wouldn’t be just another Civil War monument. It would be a monument to honor the sacrifices of black Confederate troops from South Carolina.
Problem is, historians say there weren’t any black Confederate soldiers in South Carolina.
But Walter Edgar, considered to be the premier historian on all things South Carolina, said there’s no evidence there were ever any black soldiers that fought under the Confederate banner.
“In all my years of research, I can say I have seen no documentation of black South Carolina soldiers fighting for the Confederacy,” Edgar told The State newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina. “In fact, when secession came, the state turned down free (blacks) who wanted to volunteer because they didn’t want armed persons of color.”
There were blacks in the Confederate army, but they were either slaves or free blacks forced to work without pay as cooks or servants, said Edgar, a professor emeritus at the University of South Carolina and author of “South Carolina: A History.”…
(EDITOR’S NOTE: The above came from CNN, and it is unfortunate that they used the Southern Poverty Law Center to finish the column.) For some commentary on the black soldier’s that did serve [in other states], see Carol Swain’s post via Walter Williams: Black Confederates Were More Than Cooks And Servants
I wanted to post some of my early thoughts [rant] on the decision, followed by more rantings:
Two… yes, the number two, has now become an objective concept in law over and above millions of years of evolution (Natures Law), or God’s Law (Natural Law) honing or creating the ideal that is the “male-female” relation. Both of these ideas, Natures Law and natures God (from the Declaration), under-girded the philosophy of the movement that wrote the greatest document/contract in human history. [Take away that philosophy and you lose the document.]
The mission of the church in the West has just changed. Soon the number 2 will fall by the relativistic roadside to plural marriages. All these non-ideal familial structures (according to Nature or natures God) will erode the religious freedom the Founders set up.
But we have a generation that neither looks to history for guidance or to any religious/moral authority outside themselves.
This experiment will eventually fall into the edict of the French (Jacobin) idea of equality in outcome… And to be clear, the guillotine soon followed. Tyranny never follows far behind forced outcomes.
The priority of the male-female relationship is just a larger piece to the puzzle called “deconstructionism.”
My other thoughts for here is something I have said for quite a while now: “leftism” eats itself. It always has. We have seen socialist groups fight for their agenda to be paramount (thinking of Russian and German historical hegemony that led to many deaths to accomplish this goal… before the end result of the power structure and well-known leaders took power — which caused even more deaths).
Because of the flag issue, already there is talk of the Jefferson Memorial (the founder of the party running around from activist issue-to-issue ~ they do this because they replace the God shaped vacuum with politics)… banning Gone with the Wind (even though a black woman [the first time in our history] won “Best Supporting Actress)… etc.
The hubris of the left can be seen as well in thinking that they [politicians] can control weather (the sun) by legislation. Or changing gender by the stroke of a pen. Pride predates the fall.
In the “rights” area I always point out that these “special rights” [not equal rights] are shown in conflict. Here is one example theorized by Dale Berryhill:
“If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it. Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?”
Another example comes from an activist site:
“The gay rights movement has won rights and recognition that largely serve the interests of white, wealthy cisgender* gay men to the detriment of poor queers and queer people of color, and to the detriment of racial and economic justice more generally.” (*…related types of gender identity perceptions, where individuals’ experiences of their own gender agree with the sex they were assigned at birth.)
So you can see when you move from equal under the law to special interest groups getting special protections, these camps begin to battle each-other. They “eat” each-other.
This is how I see it.
On one level it shows a proclivity to self destruct when you remove God from the equation.
The God that includes 100% justice, 100% love, 100% grace, 100% hatred for sin, etc. (not emphasizing parts of God one agrees with or on and demphasizing or muting aspects of God one disagrees with). You know, the Judeo-Christian concept of God, the bedrock to our Republic.
GK Chesterton said, “When a man ceases to believe in God he does not believe in nothing, he believes almost in anything.”
So I like it because the chaos of the secular world shows the Christian-theistic worldview works. I also like it because this dysmorphism exists primarily on the left of the political spectrum ~ which makes sense because they are a) more secular, and when religious they b) have more of a proclivity to emphasize one aspect of God over another in their theology (pick-and-choose the God they serve).
So I like it because it shows that while the GOP is also chaotic to some extent, it works better when its ideals are leaned on (trade-offs). (The Utopian ideal of the lefts base do not believe in trade-offs.)
ALL THAT BEING SAID… there is a dangerous aspect to this. As the left eats itself, they have historically looked for scape-goats. Jews and Christians are typically the fall-guy… especially in the 20th and 21st Century.
The left “KNOWS” its goals are well meaning, and so find acknowledgment that they are true and society “NEEDS” them ~ again, based on the “well meaningful’ness.”
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severley, because we have deserved it, because ‘ought to have known better,’ is to be treated as a human persons in God’s image.”
So, in the West as these “well-meaning” ideals works themselves out, expect more legal, cultural, and violent expression against those who hold to a historical, conserving theology and expressing this in public life.
This is the downside, and as RJ Rummel pointed out in his fourth book in his series, “Death by Government,” that as democracies become more undemocratic, policies begin that cause more death to its own citizens. Of course this is not an immediate happenstance, but legal and jail-time pre-date these outcomes. For instance, the next move will be gay-couples demanding to be married in churches and bringing those cases to the courts.
I will end this rant with a quote from a man who knows personally about this “secularization”
“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’ Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; … [and] if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.'”
Quoted in Ericson, Edward E. Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney, The Solzhenitsyn Reader: New and Essential Writings 1947-2005. Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2006, page 577.
I loved this callers short historical bio of the flag in question. Rush did a short bio of it as well. The Daily Callers original upload on YouTube had a horribly low volume issue. So I corrected it and uploaded it at my Live-Leak and posted it and other issues here:
The only problem is… WalMart still sells merchandise with a mass-murderer on them. Gateway Pundit quotes one of the best writers on Che and Fidel:
Fontova wrote about Guevara’s and the Castro regime’s anti-Black racism in a 2009 column at Human Events chastising members of the Congressional Black Caucus for meeting in Cuba with the communist dictator brothers Fidel and Raul Castro:
Racism is one of the cornerstones of the Castro regime. As Fidel’s close friend and ally, the murderous Ernesto “Che” Guevara, once said, “The Negro is indolent and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent… We’re going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the Cuban revolution. By which I mean: nothing
…Today the prison population in Stalinist/Apartheid Cuba is 90% black while only 9% of the ruling Stalinist party is black. As these black legislators cavorted in Cuba, a black Cuban anti-communist named Antunez, who suffered 17 years in Castro’s dungeons (essentially for quoting Martin Luther King and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights in a public square), was on a hunger strike against Castroism. I will quote his sister from a samizdat smuggled out of Cuba last year while he was still in prison:
“The Cuban government tries to fool the world with siren songs depicting racial equality in our country. But it is all a farce, as I and my family can attest, having suffered from the systematic racism directed at us by Castro’s regime. My brother suffers the scourge of racial hatred every day. The beatings are always accompanied by racial epithets. They set dogs on him. They deny him medical attention. They kept him from attending his mother’s funeral.”
“The racist mentality is so ingrained among Cuba’s agents of repression that when mixed race groups are stopped on the street, only the blacks are asked for their identification papers. The only thing I have to thank the Cuban revolution for,” she quoted her brother, “is for restoring the yoke of slavery that my ancestors lived under.”
Rush’s correction before you listen to the 2-minute audio:
I have to make a minor correction — and unlike most, when we make a correction, we make it prominently. I’m not going to say something today that’s erroneous and wait until Friday at 2:55 in the afternoon to fix it. So here we go: The Confederate flag does not fly over the South Carolina state capitol. Only the United States flag and the state flag actually fly over the capitol.
The flag in question, the Confederate flag, flies separately on the state capitol grounds, and the controversy is whether it should be on the grounds of the state capitol at all. It does not fly over the actual capitol anymore. It once did. The point is not changed, here. Ernest Hollings, a Democrat, put the Confederate flag up! The old Dixiecrats were Democrats!
More from Rush (and take note of the Clinton-Gore campaign flag pin [i.e., histories a bitch!]):
…This Confederate flag business, Hillary Clinton’s now come out and she’s demanding that the Confederate flag be removed in South Carolina, and really is a key point. It does not fly over the statehouse. It used to, resulting from the commandment, if you will, from Senator Ernest Fritz Hollings, Democrat Senator, South Carolina. He used to be the governor, he put it up.
It was a Republican, ladies and gentlemen, a conservative Republican governor who first tried to get the Confederate flag removed from atop the statehouse. And, by the way, that conservative Republican governor got no support from the local NAALCP. In fact, when that all happened, the Democrats used the flag against the Republican governor, and it may have cost him the election. That was not that long ago.
Now Hillary Clinton has come out and demanded the flag be removed. Never mind that while the Clintons were in Arkansas they presided over something called the annual celebration of Confederate Flag Day, which continues to this day. Oh, yeah. It does. Confederate Flag Day continues to this day in Arkansas, and when the Clintons lived there, they presided over the annual celebration.
Not only that, Governor Bill Clinton, 1987, signed into law an act that commemorated the Confederacy with a blue star in the Arkansas state flag. I know I’m spitting against the wind here. I know none of this is gonna matter an iota to anybody. But I have such reverence for you people in this audience, I have such respect that I want you to know the truth of these things. And this wave, this never ending wave of literal destruction that is just sweeping across our country is relentless. And whatever I can do to have those of you know the truth about this and the blatant hypocrisy, because the Democrats are never held to account for hypocrisy….