Posted on 11/08/2015 9:36:32 AM PST by yoe
LOUISVILLE, Miss. — In single strokes after the massacre of nine black churchgoers in Charleston in June, Confederate battle flags were taken from statehouse grounds in South Carolina and Alabama, pulled from shelves at major retailers like Walmart and declared unwelcome, if to (limited effect), at Nascar races.
What happened so swiftly elsewhere is not so simple in Mississippi. The Confederate battle flag is not simply flying in one hotly disputed spot at the State Capitol but occupying the upper left corner of the state flag, which has been flying since 1894. (And as recently as 2001), Mississippians voted by a nearly two-to-one ratio to keep it. Recent ( polling) suggests the majority have not changed their minds.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I don't in any way, shape or form see that there was any reference to Eisenhower in post#127. I am quite sure it was a reference to the very much abbreviated snippet, plucked like a cherry, from a letter written by Lee, and submitted by poster dsc. But since you have shoe-horned Ike into this conversation, here is my two cents:
I think that certainly, in the instance of Eisenhower's quote about his hero, it behooves us to remember the wise words of Mark Twain: "To arrive at a just estimate of a renowned man's character one must judge it by the standards of his time, not ours." Those of us who were self-aware in 1960 should recall that the emphasis of the reason for the Conflict was still on the right of a State to secede. In 1960 preparations were well underway for the upcoming 100yr remembrance of the Battle of Gettysburg. The Civil Rights movement was still a year or two off in the future. Ike, who happened to live in the town of Gettysburg, PA, and who himself was a noble military leader was emphasizing the Noble qualities of Lee as regarded Lee's honorable allegiance to his State, and his military leadership qualities. Today, in retrospect, we have the benefit of a different outlook. Without a doubt, Lee had admirable qualities. Without a doubt, Lee also had some less admirable qualities. I believe that Twain's words most certainly ring true in the matter of us looking back and passing judgement on Lee. Every "Age" of Western Civilization seems to believe it is more "enlightened" than all preceding it. True for Lee, true for Ike, and true for us. It is just my opinion that Lincoln was far and away the most enlightened man of his age. For good or ill, we live in his shadow.
Our local paper wrote a scathing article criticizing teens for displaying a Confederate flag. The article has a picture attached that displayed the Confederate flag.
If you cannot win a debate over the Constitution, you resort to name calling against those who recognize that its purpose was to create a functional agency to accomplish specific delegated purposes for the constituent sovereigns--never to allow some of the constituents to dictate social policy or take unjust advantage of others.
Your anger over something that happened over a century & a half ago, makes you look ridiculous.
I believe you asked me this question because of my earlier post to another member of this site. I said: “In your posts I don't often see references to the northern colonies writing the preservation of human bondage into the Declaration of Independence . . .”
You probably remember from you 9th grade civics class this language: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands . . . a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
The signers of the Declaration from the 13 northern and southern states then itemized a long train of abuses and usurpations. The language you asked about is this: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us. . .”
This is a reference to the King of England stirring up slave rebellions in the colonies. I am uncomfortable having to tell you this but the northern and southern colonists didn't like slave rebellions. They wanted to keep their slaves. This was one of the issues that caused the colonies to break away from England.
This is apparently the first time you have heard of this. Look it up.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
No, Jefferson wasn't talking about slave rebellions. He was referring to the Brits encouraging the indian populations to attack the colonists. Now it is true that an early draft of the DOL contained language condemning the crown for not crushing the slave trade but that language didn't make the cut - and didn't refer to slave revolts either.
http://www.founding.com/the_declaration_of_i/pageID.2457/default.asp
Where did you learn history, “Ripleys Believe Or Not’’?
My anger? I’m not angry at anyone. I pity these people who are sorry the South lost the war.
The guy was talking about slavery being mentioned in The Declaration Of Independence, not the Constitution. And again, Ike can think all he wanted to about Lee. To the guy was bum.
Slavery was abolished in New Jersey in 1846.
Yes, Jefferson was talking about slave rebellions in the phrase “excited domestic insurrections. He then used a conjunction - the word “and” - to link another offense of the King - bringing on the inhabitants of our frontier, the merciless Indian Savages. Indian Savages were not then considered part of the domestic landscape.
The first sentence of the text in the link you posted repudiates your interpretation by stating: “The British had encouraged slave and Indian revolts against the colonists.”
See my post #152. You may want to consider getting someone besides rockrr to hold your coat.
You might consider reading some real history dude. Here’s a start: The South lost. It hoped like hell to win the war it started but it lost.
No one holds my coat dude. But you might get “Ohioan’’ to stop holding yours.
Note to self: 6:59 pm. jmacusa just admitted he lost the debate. Changed subject.
And just how does one ‘’lose’’ a debate on the internet?
“Again, show me where in The Constitution it’s mentions slavery.”
Well, nobody asked me but . . . you might look at Article I, Section 2; Article I, Section 9 and Article IV, Section 2.
Or just turn to Amendment XIII, adopted December 6, 1865. Section I says “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . .”
For some reason somebody thought that amendment was needed to end slavery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.