Confederate Flag

[watab kid]

6 hours ago, WOLFY said:

i thought 13 stripes made them Union (not confederate) flags

 

also: some article mentions the bicentennial celebrations of 1989 (wasn’t our bicentennial 1976?)

yes the bicentennial was 1976 , i remember exactly what i was doing that day , i had a small crew of volunteers that built a stage for a dixieland performance by three bands from the area , my father had promised us free beer if we put it up and tore it down , we were drinking beer in the park listening to some great music being performed 

[Subdeacon Joe]

6 hours ago, WOLFY said:

i thought 13 stripes made them Union (not confederate) flags

 

also: some article mentions the bicentennial celebrations of 1989 (wasn’t our bicentennial 1976?)

 

Originally we were a Confederation of 13 free and independent states, hence, Confederate flag. With a whole bunch of rebel battle flags...see Sedalia Dave's excellent posts above. 

[watab kid]

1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Originally we were a Confederation of 13 free and independent states, hence, Confederate flag. With a whole bunch of rebel battle flags...see Sedalia Dave's excellent posts above. 

ah , i did know that but had slipped my mind that there was a revolution before the civil revolution , i did not tie that together nor sort it apart in this thread but i see it now , i also respect every american and their flag in this time of year as we are all americans , just like so far i respect all americans today - long as they respect the country they live in , it has after all given them the right to disrespect ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and accept the consequences thereof

 

just for the record - that will be coming 

Edited July 3 by watab kid

[WOLFY]

like watab kid, i was confusing the 1776 rebels with the Southron ones from 85 years later

 

[watab kid]

5 hours ago, WOLFY said:

like watab kid, i was confusing the 1776 rebels with the Southron ones from 85 years later

 

yup , my bad , 

[Dapper Dave]

On 7/1/2026 at 8:36 AM, Dantankerous said:

Not to worry. The woke crowd is happy to call any flag racist anymore. Put a picture of a jar of peanut butter on a flag and somehow you're racist. 

Give me peanut butter or give me death?

[Stump Water]

On 7/1/2026 at 8:34 PM, Sedalia Dave said:

Interesting read

 

Flags of the American Revolution Era

 

I've never seen or heard the Gadsden called "First Marine Flag".

[watab kid]

im familiar with the gadsden but ive always differentiated historically between the "revolutionaries" and we "confederates" because they were entirely different disagreements philosophically in my mind , or so i was taught , i follow my grandfather's thinking here , i see where one might think them the same - but i think they are wrong in that thinking , just as i think the war of 1812 was n inversion  , 

[9245]

OK, after briefly scanning this thread, and just giving my broad thoughts in general, a few things need said.

 

1: Most people, particularly liberals who are professionally offended to the point that they make up new things to be offended about, on other people’s behalf at that mind you, have no conception of what the confederate flag actually is, let alone what it looked like, they think the confederate flag is Lee’s battle flag, which it emphatically is not, hell Lee’s wasn’t even the only battle flag.  (They also don’t understand the actually very interesting, and completely non political, very practical reason why he designed that flag the way he did, or that that decision actually helped both sides)

 

2: There is nothing even remotely offensive about the Confederate flag, or even Lee’s battle flag, it is not about race and never was, nor was the war in general.  To me it represents states rights and resistance to federal tyranny and over reach, and also a very important historical relic.

 

3:  At this point, especially the way how everything is hyper polarized now, I take particular pleasure in twisting leftie’s hyper sensitive little nipples every chance that I get, just to piss them off.  I live on the salt of their tears, it is my morning coffee.  So if I can offend those little snow flakes with a mere flag, damn right I will fly it.

 

4: States have the right to secede just as the US as a whole did from Britain in 1776, make whatever legal argument that you want, freedom is freedom, and if the government, supposedly of and by the people, not only does not represent you but actively represses and subjugates you for the political benefit or wants of others, you have the God given right to rebel and form your own government, please see the language of the Declaration of Independence for your legal theory behind that.  I don’t care what the politicians or courts say, I’m sure King George thought that the rebel colonists were breaking the law too.  Same concept.

 

5: Here is the general political situation in 1860:

 

A: The nation was hyper polarized, it was a political zero sum game, for one side to win the other must lose, there was no room in the middle for compromise, whichever side was not in power would see themselves as completely subjugated and powerless with no effective political representation or recourse.  (Does this seem familiar to anyone here?  Any modern parallels to be drawn perhaps?)

 

B: The North was actively repressing and abusing the South.  The North was imposing punitive and coercive tariffs upon the South, in violation of the Constitution, and in direct breach of the understanding by which those states joined the Union in the first place, and as I mentioned there was no political or legal recourse available.  Further, Northern interests were taking advantage of the situation, buying Southern materials at a steal, then selling finished products back at an extreme markup, thus draining Southern wealth.  Kind of Sounds a lot like the British vs the American colonists doesn’t it?

 

C Lincoln lost the election (at least from a pure numbers point of view).  Lincoln failed to receive a majority of electoral votes, yet was still president.  This was honestly the South’s fault due to a divided vote, but still, by the numbers he did fail to get a majority and he was distinctly anti Southern, see point A above.  For most of the South the election of Lincoln was the last straw and lead directly to their secession.

 

The South had good reason for what they did.

 

Also, for context:

 

-Slavery as an institution was just as unpopular in the South, however it was an economic necessity, that was slowly changing, but it was still the reality.  Why?  Mostly due to Northern meddling the cost of slaves had risen so much that they were made an economic commodity as much as anything, there was significant capital and investment wrapped up in them, one slave had roughly the same value as a house, or to put it in to modern context, about $250,000 worth of modern money, give or take, and the abolitionists wanted to erase that without compensation.  Also, I seem to recall something in the Constitution about the seizure of property and the need to compensate for it.  I’m not justifying the practice here, just explaining the economics of it.  Which was where most of the South was, they did not like it conceptually or morally, but there you go.

 

-Due to the extreme cost of slaves and the economic poverty and repression of the South, most were actually owned by Northern interests.  Most Southerners not only did not own one they did not like the concept either.

 

-The North also had slavery.  The North had slave states, all through the war, and AFTER.

 

-The fugitive slave act was still enforced through most of the war, escaped Southern slaves would be captured by the North and returned to their owners.

 

-Northern generals personally owned slaves.

 

-Lincoln, in his campaign, expressly said that he had no intention of ending slavery.

 

-The emancipation proclamation was a wartime measure designed purely for propaganda, the war, prior to that, was incredibly unpopular in the North, most people in the North actually agreed with the South that they had a right to secede and thus a war to force them back in to the Union was wrong, thus Lincoln needed to refocus the war and make it about something unpopular in both the North and the South, slavery.  The president has no legal or constitutional power to declare royal style proclamations, nor to seize property without compensation.  Nor, obviously was the South even a member of the Union at that point and subject to his whims or decrees.  It had all the legal effect of a law saying that Cubans in Cuba cannot wear red on a Sunday.  It was pure propaganda.

 

-Slavery did not end until well after the war with the passing of the 13th Amendment.

 

So no, the war was never about slavery.

[John Kloehr]

A lot to unpack there, will note the Emancipation Proclamation was not enforceable where it applied. States which stayed in the union got to keep slavery, slaves were freed in states who seceded:

 

"

 

all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States

 

"

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

35 minutes ago, 9245 said:

OK, after briefly scanning this thread, and just giving my broad thoughts in general, a few things need said.

 

1: Most people, particularly liberals who are professionally offended to the point that they make up new things to be offended about, on other people’s behalf at that mind you, have no conception of what the confederate flag actually is, let alone what it looked like, they think the confederate flag is Lee’s battle flag, which it emphatically is not, hell Lee’s wasn’t even the only battle flag.  (They also don’t understand the actually very interesting, and completely non political, very practical reason why he designed that flag the way he did, or that that decision actually helped both sides)

 

2: There is nothing even remotely offensive about the Confederate flag, or even Lee’s battle flag, it is not about race and never was, nor was the war in general.  To me it represents states rights and resistance to federal tyranny and over reach, and also a very important historical relic.

 

3:  At this point, especially the way how everything is hyper polarized now, I take particular pleasure in twisting leftie’s hyper sensitive little nipples every chance that I get, just to piss them off.  I live on the salt of their tears, it is my morning coffee.  So if I can offend those little snow flakes with a mere flag, damn right I will fly it.

 

4: States have the right to secede just as the US as a whole did from Britain in 1776, make whatever legal argument that you want, freedom is freedom, and if the government, supposedly of and by the people, not only does not represent you but actively represses and subjugates you for the political benefit or wants of others, you have the God given right to rebel and form your own government, please see the language of the Declaration of Independence for your legal theory behind that.  I don’t care what the politicians or courts say, I’m sure King George thought that the rebel colonists were breaking the law too.  Same concept.

 

5: Here is the general political situation in 1860:

 

A: The nation was hyper polarized, it was a political zero sum game, for one side to win the other must lose, there was no room in the middle for compromise, whichever side was not in power would see themselves as completely subjugated and powerless with no effective political representation or recourse.  (Does this seem familiar to anyone here?  Any modern parallels to be drawn perhaps?)

 

B: The North was actively repressing and abusing the South.  The North was imposing punitive and coercive tariffs upon the South, in violation of the Constitution, and in direct breach of the understanding by which those states joined the Union in the first place, and as I mentioned there was no political or legal recourse available.  Further, Northern interests were taking advantage of the situation, buying Southern materials at a steal, then selling finished products back at an extreme markup, thus draining Southern wealth.  Kind of Sounds a lot like the British vs the American colonists doesn’t it?

 

C Lincoln lost the election (at least from a pure numbers point of view).  Lincoln failed to receive a majority of electoral votes, yet was still president.  This was honestly the South’s fault due to a divided vote, but still, by the numbers he did fail to get a majority and he was distinctly anti Southern, see point A above.  For most of the South the election of Lincoln was the last straw and lead directly to their secession.

 

The South had good reason for what they did.

 

Also, for context:

 

-Slavery as an institution was just as unpopular in the South, however it was an economic necessity, that was slowly changing, but it was still the reality.  Why?  Mostly due to Northern meddling the cost of slaves had risen so much that they were made an economic commodity as much as anything, there was significant capital and investment wrapped up in them, one slave had roughly the same value as a house, or to put it in to modern context, about $250,000 worth of modern money, give or take, and the abolitionists wanted to erase that without compensation.  Also, I seem to recall something in the Constitution about the seizure of property and the need to compensate for it.  I’m not justifying the practice here, just explaining the economics of it.  Which was where most of the South was, they did not like it conceptually or morally, but there you go.

 

-Due to the extreme cost of slaves and the economic poverty and repression of the South, most were actually owned by Northern interests.  Most Southerners not only did not own one they did not like the concept either.

 

-The North also had slavery.  The North had slave states, all through the war, and AFTER.

 

-The fugitive slave act was still enforced through most of the war, escaped Southern slaves would be captured by the North and returned to their owners.

 

-Northern generals personally owned slaves.

 

-Lincoln, in his campaign, expressly said that he had no intention of ending slavery.

 

-The emancipation proclamation was a wartime measure designed purely for propaganda, the war, prior to that, was incredibly unpopular in the North, most people in the North actually agreed with the South that they had a right to secede and thus a war to force them back in to the Union was wrong, thus Lincoln needed to refocus the war and make it about something unpopular in both the North and the South, slavery.  The president has no legal or constitutional power to declare royal style proclamations, nor to seize property without compensation.  Nor, obviously was the South even a member of the Union at that point and subject to his whims or decrees.  It had all the legal effect of a law saying that Cubans in Cuba cannot wear red on a Sunday.  It was pure propaganda.

 

-Slavery did not end until well after the war with the passing of the 13th Amendment.

 

So no, the war was never about slavery.

 

Well said and well laid out, thank you. 

 

Your last line, too many people conflate secession and the War of 1861. Slavery was the predominant reason (as in 51%), but not the only reason for secession. Mentioned in all the bills of secession. 

 

But the war, per Lincoln's words*, was to keep southern dollars from imposts and duties flowing into federal coffers, and protect property belonging to the federal government.   That's about like England saying that the colonies were free to leave as long as they kept paying taxes to the Crown.

 

I have to believe that when the founders scraped the Articles of Confederation with its perpetual and unbreakable union clause they intentionally did not put such a clause in the Constitution that replaced it.

 

*"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."

 

[Sedalia Dave]

2 hours ago, 9245 said:

OK, after briefly scanning this thread, and just giving my broad thoughts in general, a few things need said.

 

1: Most people, particularly liberals who are professionally offended to the point that they make up new things to be offended about, on other people’s behalf at that mind you, have no conception of what the confederate flag actually is, let alone what it looked like, they think the confederate flag is Lee’s battle flag, which it emphatically is not, hell Lee’s wasn’t even the only battle flag.  (They also don’t understand the actually very interesting, and completely non political, very practical reason why he designed that flag the way he did, or that that decision actually helped both sides)

 

2: There is nothing even remotely offensive about the Confederate flag, or even Lee’s battle flag, it is not about race and never was, nor was the war in general.  To me it represents states rights and resistance to federal tyranny and over reach, and also a very important historical relic.

 

3:  At this point, especially the way how everything is hyper polarized now, I take particular pleasure in twisting leftie’s hyper sensitive little nipples every chance that I get, just to piss them off.  I live on the salt of their tears, it is my morning coffee.  So if I can offend those little snow flakes with a mere flag, damn right I will fly it.

 

4: States have the right to secede just as the US as a whole did from Britain in 1776, make whatever legal argument that you want, freedom is freedom, and if the government, supposedly of and by the people, not only does not represent you but actively represses and subjugates you for the political benefit or wants of others, you have the God given right to rebel and form your own government, please see the language of the Declaration of Independence for your legal theory behind that.  I don’t care what the politicians or courts say, I’m sure King George thought that the rebel colonists were breaking the law too.  Same concept.

 

5: Here is the general political situation in 1860:

 

A: The nation was hyper polarized, it was a political zero sum game, for one side to win the other must lose, there was no room in the middle for compromise, whichever side was not in power would see themselves as completely subjugated and powerless with no effective political representation or recourse.  (Does this seem familiar to anyone here?  Any modern parallels to be drawn perhaps?)

 

B: The North was actively repressing and abusing the South.  The North was imposing punitive and coercive tariffs upon the South, in violation of the Constitution, and in direct breach of the understanding by which those states joined the Union in the first place, and as I mentioned there was no political or legal recourse available.  Further, Northern interests were taking advantage of the situation, buying Southern materials at a steal, then selling finished products back at an extreme markup, thus draining Southern wealth.  Kind of Sounds a lot like the British vs the American colonists doesn’t it?

 

C Lincoln lost the election (at least from a pure numbers point of view).  Lincoln failed to receive a majority of electoral votes, yet was still president.  This was honestly the South’s fault due to a divided vote, but still, by the numbers he did fail to get a majority and he was distinctly anti Southern, see point A above.  For most of the South the election of Lincoln was the last straw and lead directly to their secession.

 

The South had good reason for what they did.

 

Also, for context:

 

-Slavery as an institution was just as unpopular in the South, however it was an economic necessity, that was slowly changing, but it was still the reality.  Why?  Mostly due to Northern meddling the cost of slaves had risen so much that they were made an economic commodity as much as anything, there was significant capital and investment wrapped up in them, one slave had roughly the same value as a house, or to put it in to modern context, about $250,000 worth of modern money, give or take, and the abolitionists wanted to erase that without compensation.  Also, I seem to recall something in the Constitution about the seizure of property and the need to compensate for it.  I’m not justifying the practice here, just explaining the economics of it.  Which was where most of the South was, they did not like it conceptually or morally, but there you go.

 

-Due to the extreme cost of slaves and the economic poverty and repression of the South, most were actually owned by Northern interests.  Most Southerners not only did not own one they did not like the concept either.

 

-The North also had slavery.  The North had slave states, all through the war, and AFTER.

 

-The fugitive slave act was still enforced through most of the war, escaped Southern slaves would be captured by the North and returned to their owners.

 

-Northern generals personally owned slaves.

 

-Lincoln, in his campaign, expressly said that he had no intention of ending slavery.

 

-The emancipation proclamation was a wartime measure designed purely for propaganda, the war, prior to that, was incredibly unpopular in the North, most people in the North actually agreed with the South that they had a right to secede and thus a war to force them back in to the Union was wrong, thus Lincoln needed to refocus the war and make it about something unpopular in both the North and the South, slavery.  The president has no legal or constitutional power to declare royal style proclamations, nor to seize property without compensation.  Nor, obviously was the South even a member of the Union at that point and subject to his whims or decrees.  It had all the legal effect of a law saying that Cubans in Cuba cannot wear red on a Sunday.  It was pure propaganda.

 

-Slavery did not end until well after the war with the passing of the 13th Amendment.

 

So no, the war was never about slavery.

 

Well said but the flag in the original post predates the Civil war by about 84 years.

[WOLFY]

18 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

Well said but the flag in the original post predates the Civil war by about 84 years.

 

their point is that the 13 original colonies in their rebellion against british rule were also a confederacy

[watab kid]

On 7/6/2026 at 1:13 PM, 9245 said:

OK, after briefly scanning this thread, and just giving my broad thoughts in general, a few things need said.

 

1: Most people, particularly liberals who are professionally offended to the point that they make up new things to be offended about, on other people’s behalf at that mind you, have no conception of what the confederate flag actually is, let alone what it looked like, they think the confederate flag is Lee’s battle flag, which it emphatically is not, hell Lee’s wasn’t even the only battle flag.  (They also don’t understand the actually very interesting, and completely non political, very practical reason why he designed that flag the way he did, or that that decision actually helped both sides)

 

2: There is nothing even remotely offensive about the Confederate flag, or even Lee’s battle flag, it is not about race and never was, nor was the war in general.  To me it represents states rights and resistance to federal tyranny and over reach, and also a very important historical relic.

 

3:  At this point, especially the way how everything is hyper polarized now, I take particular pleasure in twisting leftie’s hyper sensitive little nipples every chance that I get, just to piss them off.  I live on the salt of their tears, it is my morning coffee.  So if I can offend those little snow flakes with a mere flag, damn right I will fly it.

 

4: States have the right to secede just as the US as a whole did from Britain in 1776, make whatever legal argument that you want, freedom is freedom, and if the government, supposedly of and by the people, not only does not represent you but actively represses and subjugates you for the political benefit or wants of others, you have the God given right to rebel and form your own government, please see the language of the Declaration of Independence for your legal theory behind that.  I don’t care what the politicians or courts say, I’m sure King George thought that the rebel colonists were breaking the law too.  Same concept.

 

5: Here is the general political situation in 1860:

 

A: The nation was hyper polarized, it was a political zero sum game, for one side to win the other must lose, there was no room in the middle for compromise, whichever side was not in power would see themselves as completely subjugated and powerless with no effective political representation or recourse.  (Does this seem familiar to anyone here?  Any modern parallels to be drawn perhaps?)

 

B: The North was actively repressing and abusing the South.  The North was imposing punitive and coercive tariffs upon the South, in violation of the Constitution, and in direct breach of the understanding by which those states joined the Union in the first place, and as I mentioned there was no political or legal recourse available.  Further, Northern interests were taking advantage of the situation, buying Southern materials at a steal, then selling finished products back at an extreme markup, thus draining Southern wealth.  Kind of Sounds a lot like the British vs the American colonists doesn’t it?

 

C Lincoln lost the election (at least from a pure numbers point of view).  Lincoln failed to receive a majority of electoral votes, yet was still president.  This was honestly the South’s fault due to a divided vote, but still, by the numbers he did fail to get a majority and he was distinctly anti Southern, see point A above.  For most of the South the election of Lincoln was the last straw and lead directly to their secession.

 

The South had good reason for what they did.

 

Also, for context:

 

-Slavery as an institution was just as unpopular in the South, however it was an economic necessity, that was slowly changing, but it was still the reality.  Why?  Mostly due to Northern meddling the cost of slaves had risen so much that they were made an economic commodity as much as anything, there was significant capital and investment wrapped up in them, one slave had roughly the same value as a house, or to put it in to modern context, about $250,000 worth of modern money, give or take, and the abolitionists wanted to erase that without compensation.  Also, I seem to recall something in the Constitution about the seizure of property and the need to compensate for it.  I’m not justifying the practice here, just explaining the economics of it.  Which was where most of the South was, they did not like it conceptually or morally, but there you go.

 

-Due to the extreme cost of slaves and the economic poverty and repression of the South, most were actually owned by Northern interests.  Most Southerners not only did not own one they did not like the concept either.

 

-The North also had slavery.  The North had slave states, all through the war, and AFTER.

 

-The fugitive slave act was still enforced through most of the war, escaped Southern slaves would be captured by the North and returned to their owners.

 

-Northern generals personally owned slaves.

 

-Lincoln, in his campaign, expressly said that he had no intention of ending slavery.

 

-The emancipation proclamation was a wartime measure designed purely for propaganda, the war, prior to that, was incredibly unpopular in the North, most people in the North actually agreed with the South that they had a right to secede and thus a war to force them back in to the Union was wrong, thus Lincoln needed to refocus the war and make it about something unpopular in both the North and the South, slavery.  The president has no legal or constitutional power to declare royal style proclamations, nor to seize property without compensation.  Nor, obviously was the South even a member of the Union at that point and subject to his whims or decrees.  It had all the legal effect of a law saying that Cubans in Cuba cannot wear red on a Sunday.  It was pure propaganda.

 

-Slavery did not end until well after the war with the passing of the 13th Amendment.

 

So no, the war was never about slavery.

thank you , someone finally summed it up correctly - political moves to solve a war over government overreach exactly the same as the revolution but ive never thought of it thgat way before , ive always thought and believed it was states rights and NOT SLAVERY - so much of it was faught out here by mercenaries and out and out criminals ive had a lot of mixed emotions  on this western theater , but ive never been offended by the banners of any american when they were defending what they believed in 

 

even the BLM of recent days - long as we can shoot back - adtrer all there is never a ne sided war - im game if they are - ill defend my black rif;les forever as they matter 

[9245]

50 minutes ago, watab kid said:

thank you , someone finally summed it up correctly - political moves to solve a war over government overreach exactly the same as the revolution but ive never thought of it thgat way before , ive always thought and believed it was states rights and NOT SLAVERY - so much of it was faught out here by mercenaries and out and out criminals ive had a lot of mixed emotions  on this western theater , but ive never been offended by the banners of any american when they were defending what they believed in 

 

even the BLM of recent days - long as we can shoot back - adtrer all there is never a ne sided war - im game if they are - ill defend my black rif;les forever as they matter 

Bleeding Kansas is often mentioned in only the briefest of ways when discussing the war, often not much more than a paragraph or too, or perhaps a 10-15 minute lecture by the teacher at best, in both cases generally just in terms of the run up to the war, no mention is usually given to the fact that it continued well in to the war.  It’s actually one of the most interesting theaters of the war, in a lot of ways it’s the entire war itself microcosm.  Unionist Jayhawkers allegedly fighting to “free the slaves” and also to push out Missourians from Kansas, but were really just a bunch of opportunists, criminals, looters, killers, and thugs vs Bushwhackers fighting to defend their homes, families and way of life, and both sides driven by an endless cycle of revenge, all while oppressive government was on full display (see general order 10 and 11).

[Seldom Seen #16162]

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a result of Congress continuing to fail to resolve the issue of equal rights of all Americans. By leaving the issue of being admitted as a free or slave state to the voters the Civil War actually started in 1854.

 

Which is totally off the original topic.

 

[watab kid]

19 hours ago, 9245 said:

Bleeding Kansas is often mentioned in only the briefest of ways when discussing the war, often not much more than a paragraph or too, or perhaps a 10-15 minute lecture by the teacher at best, in both cases generally just in terms of the run up to the war, no mention is usually given to the fact that it continued well in to the war.  It’s actually one of the most interesting theaters of the war, in a lot of ways it’s the entire war itself microcosm.  Unionist Jayhawkers allegedly fighting to “free the slaves” and also to push out Missourians from Kansas, but were really just a bunch of opportunists, criminals, looters, killers, and thugs vs Bushwhackers fighting to defend their homes, families and way of life, and both sides driven by an endless cycle of revenge, all while oppressive government was on full display (see general order 10 and 11).

exactly what i was referring to , bloody bill quantrell and the james brothers as well as all the others , the jayhawkers - redlegs marshal cleaveland , a lot of criminals capitalizing on the situation to raid , pillage , rape and run ,