Robert E. Lee was an honest man, and no modern conservative. He would say that he SURRENDERED at Appomattox. He demanded no conditions. But since Grant unilaterally showed some mercy to the Confederates, modern conservatives would say he COMPROMISED.

On April 9, 1865, General Lee reached what a modern conservative would call a compromise with Union General US Grant. On the one hand, Lee's country ceased to exist, all the principles of the South were lost, the South was condemned to Reconstruction for twelve years and permanent inferiority within the Union. But Grant, on his own, let Lee keep his sword and he let Lee's men keep their horses, and Lee was convinced he was dealing with decent, honorable people.

Lee said later that, if he had known what was in store, he would never have surrendered.

So Appomattox was what today's conservatives would call a compromise. It was the sort of compromise that won half the world for the Communists. They had a regular policy called, "Two steps forward, one step back." They would seize something or demand something, and then the "useful idiots" ruling the West would compromise with them, giving them half of what they had seized or demanded. If socialism hadn't been such a silly economic proposition, they could have ruled the world that way.

So now we have an Appomatox Compromise on the Confederate flag. We got what the legislature would have given us if the Republican Party had never existed in South Carolina. And even that worthless compromise won't last, as we all know. The liberals demanded two steps forward this time, but only got the first step by this "compromise." They'll get the second, as they always do.

And then there's the overarching "compromise" that probably made the United States unsalvageable. This is the one where people tell us that Republicans may sell us out all the time, but one must "compromise." You have to give Republicans your vote no matter what they do to us.

I got into this business fighting Rockefeller Republicans. According to today's conservatives, the Rockefeller Republicans were right. They said that Rockefeller Republicans were "more conservative" than the Democrats, so we should have supported them. But if we had, they would still control the party.

If we always support someone who is "more conservative," no matter what, we will lose everything. We will elect people who will go along with the liberal "two steps forward, one step back." That is, after all, exactly what the "more conservative" strategy is all about. It means compromising ourselves to death.

We are getting messages from people who want to vote for turncoats on the flag because they are Republicans, and are "more conservative."

If South Carolina Democratic legislators, particularly in districts now controlled by Republicans, find they can get our vote against traitors, they will become more conservative, too. So will the Republicans. But if we give our votes to the traitors, both parties will move left, as they have been doing.

If you vote for any traitor, you are asking both parties to move left. And in real world politics, you get what you ask for.

In the politics of the real world, if Republicans can say, "conservatives have nowhere else to go," all their efforts will be dedicated to be being accepted and praised by liberals and moderates.

Let me repeat this for the hundredth time: in politics, you get no more than you ask for. If all you ask for is that someone be a little more conservative than the other side, your time would be better spent learning to accept total defeat.