Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
THOMASVILLE -- Nelson Winbush knows his voice isn't likely to be heard above the crowd that writes American history books. That doesn't keep him from speaking his mind, however.
A 75-year-old black man whose grandfather proudly fought in the gray uniform of the South during the Civil War, Winbush addressed a group of about 40 at the Thomas County Museum of History Sunday afternoon. To say the least, his perspective of the war differs greatly from what is taught in America's classrooms today.
"People have manufactured a lot of mistruths about why the war took place," he said. "It wasn't about slavery. It was about state's rights and tariffs."
Many of Winbush's words were reserved for the Confederate battle flag, which still swirls amid controversy more than 150 years after it originally flew.
"This flag has been lied about more than any flag in the world," Winbush said. "People see it and they don't really know what the hell they are looking at."
About midway through his 90-minute presentation, Winbush's comments were issued with extra force.
"This flag is the one that draped my grandfathers' coffin," he said while clutching it strongly in his left hand. "I would shudder to think what would happen if somebody tried to do something to this particular flag."
Winbush, a retired in educator and Korean War veteran who resides in Kissimmee, Fla., said the Confederate battle flag has been hijacked by racist groups, prompting unwarranted criticism from its detractors.
"This flag had nothing to with the (Ku Klux) klan or skinheads," he said while wearing a necktie that featured the Confederate emblem. "They weren't even heard of then. It was just a guide to follow in battle.
"That's all it ever was."
Winbush said Confederate soldiers started using the flag with the St. Andrews cross because its original flag closely resembled the U.S. flag. The first Confederate flag's blue patch in an upper corner and its alternating red and white stripes caused confusion on the battlefield, he said.
"Neither side (of the debate) knows what the flag represents," Winbush said. "It's dumb and dumber. You can turn it around, but it's still two dumb bunches.
"If you learn anything else today, don't be dumb."
Winbush learned about the Civil War at the knee of Louis Napoleon Nelson, who joined his master and one of his master's sons in battle voluntarily when he was 14. Nelson saw combat at Lookout Mountain, Bryson's Crossroads, Shiloh and Vicksburg.
"At Shiloh, my grandfather served as a chaplain even though he couldn't read or write," said Winbush, who bolstered his points with photos, letters and newspapers that used to belong to his grandfather. "I've never heard of a black Yankee holding such an office, so that makes him a little different."
Winbush said his grandfather, who also served as a "scavenger," never had any qualms about fighting for the South. He had plenty of chances to make a break for freedom, but never did. He attended 39 Confederate reunions, the final one in 1934. A Sons of Confederate Veterans Chapter in Tennessee is named after him.
"People ask why a black person would fight for the Confederacy. (It was) for the same damned reason a white Southerner did," Winbush explained.
Winbush said Southern blacks and whites often lived together as extended families., adding slaves and slave owners were outraged when Union forces raided their homes. He said history books rarely make mention of this.
"When the master and his older sons went to war, who did he leave his families with?" asked Winbush, who grandfather remained with his former owners 12 years after the hostilities ended. "It was with the slaves. Were his (family members) mistreated? Hell, no!
"They were protected."
Winbush said more than 90,000 blacks, some of them free, fought for the Confederacy. He has said in the past that he would have fought by his grandfather's side in the 7th Tennessee Cavalry led by Gen. Nathan Bedford Forest.
After his presentation, Winbush opened the floor for questions. Two black women, including Jule Anderson of the Thomas County Historical Society Board of Directors, told him the Confederate battle flag made them uncomfortable.
Winbush, who said he started speaking out about the Civil War in 1992 after growing weary of what he dubbed "political correctness," was also challenged about his opinions.
"I have difficulty in trying to apply today's standards with what happened 150 years ago," he said to Anderson's tearful comments. "...That's what a lot of people are attempting to do. I'm just presenting facts, not as I read from some book where somebody thought that they understood. This came straight from the horse's mouth, and I refute anybody to deny that."
Thomas County Historical Society Board member and SVC member Chip Bragg moved in to close the session after it took a political turn when a white audience member voiced disapproval of the use of Confederate symbols on the state flag. Georgia voters are set to go to the polls a week from today to pick a flag to replace the 1956 version, which featured the St. Andrew's cross prominently.
"Those of us who are serious about our Confederate heritage are very unhappy with the trivialization of Confederate symbols and their misuse," he said. "Part of what we are trying to do is correct this misunderstanding."
Okay, now I got it... You're the nut, right?
This imagination thing you've turned me onto is wonderful.
The reports from Andersonville report that the prisoners there suffered the same fate as the ANV. Lack of supplies. Lack of food. Lack of medicine. Lack of clean water. Widespread sickness and disease. The death rate was tragic, but it was not due to intentional mistreatment, at least not that has ever been conclusively documented.
4CJ cited a source that claimed >11,000 courts martial related to sexual assault.
You said these were likely between the soldiers themselves.
How many ways can that be interpreted??!!?
No, you've been as big an ass as anyone. The only one of you that doesn't go into full-ass mode is 4CJ.
...considering that you've displayed a stubbornness in your ranting on Article IV that would make a mule blush.
So you just can't stand it when people read the Constitution, huh?
It is laughable that you think I can't win an argument when no serious attempt to support any argument has been made by you.
The words of the Constitution is all I need. No need to quote longwinded rants by partsan justices or bookwriters when you have simple truths on your side.
You post wild assertions which have no bearing on the debate at hand, then flame away like a child and stomp your feet, repeating the unsupported assertions which got you into trouble in the first place.
Trouble? I'm not the one that has to quote this guy or that guy to support lies, I can just quote the Constitution.
You go so far as to post links that evidence the exact opposite of what you state (like a trite historian's summation of the Texas secession convention), and refer to them as though there was anything within said "documentation" which could be interpreted by the most twisted logician to support anything you've said.
That's all you guys do is post opinion with a spattering of historical documentation here and there. If it's documentation when you post it, why isn't it when I post it?
We treat people with respect who show the same kindness toward us.
HA! You need to read this thread again. I've been personally attacked from the beginning. Did you see Stand Watie's posts to me? GOPCapitalists? You used the term "freak" unprovoked. Give me a break.
We accept the notion of authority, and have cited from several (the founders, the constitutional conventions, the SCOTUS) in support of our argument.
That's the trouble, you guys cherry-pick. It's much more accurate to read the Constitution for yourself and that way you don't end up going by precedent, but by what each person gets from the words of the Constitution. If everyone went by their own mind, then we wouldn't be in the shape we're in today where the Constitution is not followed for the most part. More people would be able to see the unConstitutionality of the things we do today. But instead we rely on precedent allowing partisans to do the thinking for us. I don't though.
We do not accept that #3fan had #3epiphany and is anything more than a #3rdratearmchairconstitutionalscholar.
It's better than relying on partisans and reading books by the insane. You guy's beliefs border on the insane.
The topic was "books", idiot.
This imagination thing you've turned me onto is wonderful. The reports from Andersonville report that the prisoners there suffered the same fate as the ANV. Lack of supplies. Lack of food. Lack of medicine. Lack of clean water. Widespread sickness and disease. The death rate was tragic, but it was not due to intentional mistreatment, at least not that has ever been conclusively documented.
Wouldn't it have been better to release them? If the South couldn't take care of them, why keep them? It looks like murder to me.
You lie. 4CJ cited a souce that claimed 11,000 courts martial including some sexual charges. Who knows how many sexual charges were in there, it could've been as low as 3.
You said these were likely between the soldiers themselves.
I said most of the courts martial could be for things like fighting between the men since we don't know how many of the charges involved sexual misconduct.
How many ways can that be interpreted??!!?
Just read it. The word was "included" which means only part of them were for sexual misconduct, and that number could theoretically be as low as 3.
You only prove you are unable to read my post #848 any better than you can read the Constitution.
To: Grand Old Partisan; Gianni[GOP #811] Those who seek to destroy the UNITED States of America, in the 1860s and now, are the ones "oozing with hatred".
Gradually the newspapers are revealing this close connection between Republicanism and the Klan in the North: in such States as Maine, New York, and Indiana the influence is profound. -- Lucy Shelton Stewart, The Reward of Patriotism, 1930, p. 449.
YOUR source proclaims Republicanism to have a legacy of oozing hate, being the lackey of the KKK in northern states such as Maine, New York and Indiana. This disgrace is suppressed no longer. Finally, the Republican inability to capture Black votes is explained. Good catch!
848 posted on 03/17/2004 12:35:17 PM CST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Here is the long version again, just so it will sink in.
The Republican Party -- lackeys for the KKK. "Gradually the newspapers are revealing this close connection between Republicanism and the Klan in the North: in such States as Maine, New York, and Indiana the influence is profound." Who woulda thunk it? Lucy says it, it must be true!
SOURCE: The Reward of Patriotism, Lucy Shelton Stewart, Chapter 37, pp. 441-449
OTHER LAWS HONORING THE CONFEDERACY: THE MOTIVE BACK OF THEM
The Republican Congress and President not only authorized the issue of the traitor coin, but they also adopted a resolution authorizing the restoration of Arlington as it was before the Civil War, as a memorial to Robert E. Lee. Mrs. Frances Parkinson Keyes, wife of the Republican Senator from New Hampshire, in Good Housekeeping, [1] tells about the passage of this Bill:
When I read the list of the bills passed in the final crush of Congressional legislation, and signed by the President at the last moment, I discovered that among them was the measure authorizing the restoration of the Lee mansion. It seems like the irony of fate that a bill in which I had been so earnestly interested, and for which I had worked so long and for a time apparently so hopelessly, should at last have gone through so quickly and so easily that I did not even know of its passage until several days afterward. It was introduced, in its final form, in the House of Representatives by Mr. Cramton of Michigan, and in the Senate, without amendment, by Mr. Pepper of Pennsylvania-both Northerners, you will observe-and it is so brief that I am quoting it to you:Mrs. Keyes does not seem to remember any better than did Congress in adopting this resolution, that our country was reunited, so far as it had been disunited, by the surrender of the armies under General Lee (this same Lee) and General Johnston and others in 1865, a result forced on those in arms against our Government by the valor of the soldiers of the Union, which valor was not recognized by the Coolidge Administration.Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed, as nearly as may be practicable, to restore the Lee Mansion in the Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia, to the condition in which it existed immediately prior to the Civil War, and to procure, if possible, articles of furniture and equipment which were then in the mansion and in use by the occupants thereof. He is also authorized, in his discretion to procure replicas of the furniture and other articles in use in the mansion during the period mentioned, with a view to restoring, as far as may be practicable, the appearance of the interior of the mansion to the condition of its occupancy by the Lee family.The introduction to this resolution also states that "Honor is now accorded Robert E. Lee as one of the great military leaders of history, whose exalted character, noble life, and eminent services are recognized and esteemed, and whose manly attributes of precept and example were compelling factors in cementing the American people in bonds of patriotic devotion and action against common external enemies in the war with Spain and in the World War, thus consumating the hope of a reunited country."
Mrs. Keyes omits to state that Representative Cramton and Senator Pepper, like her husband, were Republicans: we have already mentioned that Senator Pepper was originally slated to introduce the traitor coin law in the Senate, but that that distingushed honor was finally bestowed on Senator Smoot, and the honor of presenting this Arlington Restoration Resolution was reserved for Senator Pepper.
After studying the traitor coin law, we are quite prepared for the introduction of the Spanish-American and World War references. They are supposed to be a spell which removes the curse of honoring treason by having the virtues of the sons ascend to the fathers!
In connection with this resolution restoring "the Lee Mansion" is the interesting fact that Lee never owned any of the Arlington Mansion. He himself says, in a letter to Reverdy Johnson, January 27, 1866, [2] speaking of the estate of his father-in-law, G. W. P. Custis:
A portion of his landed property has been sold by the Government, in the belief, I presume, that it belonged to me; whereas I owned no part of it, nor had any other charge than as administrator. His will, in his own handwriting, is on file in the court of Alexandria County. Arlington, and the tract on "Four Mile Run," given him by General Washington, he left to his only child, Mrs. Lee, during her life, and, at her death, to his eldest grandson.It is readily seen, therefore, that the restoration of Arlington by Congressional act in memory of Lee is somewhat farfetched, since he rarely was there, owing to his military life, and never owned any of it. The appropriation for the restoration was not passed and approved, however, until the last days of the Coolidge administration, when ninety thousand dollars was appropriated.
While Congress was adopting the resolution which states that the precepts and example of Lee were compelling factors in cementing the American people in bonds of patriotic devotion, The Confederate Veteran, organ of the Confederacy's four societies, during the same month, March, 1925, in an article entitled, A Voice from the Tomb, which discusses the opposition of the Union soldiers to the Stone Mountain coin, says: "Only those strange people of beatific visions who make reunion speeches assert the disappearance of the bloody chasm and the total lack of ill feeling between the sections." The article closes with the suggestion that the title A Voice from the Tomb, which is quoted from another paper, should be changed to A Voice from the Cesspool. With such pernicious characterization of the protest of Union soldiers, do the followers of Lee emulate his manly attributes of precept and example!
Other laws and resolutions honoring the Confederacy were recited in our Prologue:
By Congressional authority the Navy Department for several years has sent the Marine Band to attend the Confederate reunions; and the War Department has furnished bedding and tents to the number of 38,000 pieces for these same reunions.
In themselves these acts seem innocuous, and they might be so, were it not for the fact that they are used, as are all other such acts, as proof that the Confederacy was right, its cause just. After all, there does not seem to be any good reason for extending these courtesies in 1928 and 1929 any more than in the years from 1861 to 1865, since it is as rebels that they are being recognized and honored, and not in any resumed loyalty. At these reunions the flag of disunion is displayed and the uniform of the slaveholders' Confederacy worn, the flaunting of both of which was judged an act of hostility in loyal States by the Attorney-General of the United States shortly after the close of the War. [3]
The 70th Congress also enacted a law, Public No. 810, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., That the Secretary of War is authorized to erect headstones over the graves of soldiers who served in the Confederate Army and who have been buried in national city, town, or village cemeteries or in any other places, each grave to be marked with a small headstone or block which shall be of durable stone and of such design and weight as shall keep it in place when set and shall bear the name of the soldier and the name of his State inscribed thereon when the same are known. The Secretary of War shall cause to be preserved in the records of the War Department the name, rank, company, regiment, and date of death of the soldier and his State; if these are unknown it shall be so recorded.The graves of Union soldiers throughout the land have never been marked by the Government, although a law au-thorizing the marking of some of them was passed February 3, 1879. But it was not as comprehensive as this law marking Confederate graves, because the latter law authorizes the marking of Confederate graves anywhere and everywhere on earth, in the phrase "or in other places." Except in national cemeteries, regardless of any law, the graves of Union soldiers are mostly marked by their comrades or by organizations allied with the Grand Army of the Republic. As far as the grateful Government is concerned, most of these graves would be unmarked: this is a reward of patriotism! The would-be destroyers of the nation are to have their graves marked in enduring stone: this is the reward of treason!
We have already referred to the singularity, if not the incongruity, of Vice-President Dawes-acting, it is true, by the direction of Congress-in accepting the statue of the Vice-President of the Confederacy when it was unveiled in Statuary Hall in our National Capitol. On that occasion Vice-President Dawes said in part: [4]
As representing the Government of the United States, a government whose flag inspires the love of a united people no longer divided, either by section or sentiment, a government under which the North is proud of the South and the South of the North, the East of the West, and the West of the East, I accept this memorial in its name, in accordance with the act of Congress. (Applause) .Later, Congress adopted a joint resolution thanking the people of Georgia for their statue of Stephens, as follows: [5]
Resolved by the house of representatives (the senate concurring), that the statue of Alexander Hamilton Stephens, presented by the State of Georgia, to be placed in Statuary hall, is accepted in the name of the Unted States and that the thanks of congress be tendered the state for the contribution of the statue of one of its most eminent citizens, illustrious for his distinguished humanitarian service....The interesting part of this resolution is the reference to "the distinguished humanitarian service" of Stephens. This, no doubt, refers to his theories concerning slavery, particularly that it was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy."
But the truly absurd measure adopted by Congress was that, whereby a committee of fifteen was sent to the unveiling of Lee's figure, on his horse, Traveler, carved on Stone Mountain.
To understand fully this absurdity, the following facts must be known: Originally, Gutzon Borglum started the carving on Stone Mountain. When the head of Lee was well under way, dissension broke out between the sculptor and the Stone Mountain Confederate Monumental Association, because of which differences he retired from the task, and Augustus Lukeman was engaged to carry on the work. A new figure of Lee on his horse was started lower down on the mountain-side, and that which Borglum had accomplished was effaced from the mountain; other figures, presumably of Jackson and Davis, were roughly sketched in. These three figures formed but an infinitesimal portion of the vast design set forth by the Stone Mountain Association as their goal.
With the figure of Lee still incomplete, his horse hardly started, and the figures of Jackson and Davis still vague sketches, the Stone Mountain Confederate Monumental Association proceeded to have an "unveiling" of the "mounted statue of Robert E. Lee," when the whole of the completed work represented not more than two per cent of the Stone Mountain project as advertised.
And Congress spent the good money of the people of the United States to send fifteen of its members to this so-called unveiling! It took much of the effrontery and presumption which has always marked the Confederate sympathizer for them to ask for this delegation from Congress to attend such an unveiling. But it was a Confederate desire, so it was granted, and later the Stone Mountain Confederate Monumental Association sent the following resolution, which was read in Congress: [6]
Whereas the Congress of the United States passed a special joint resolution providing for the appointment of a committee of 10 Members of the House of Representatives and five from the Senate to act as the accredited representatives of the Senate and the House at the exercises held at Stone Mountain on April 9, 1928, incident to the unveiling of the mounted statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee, and the Speaker of the House, Hon. Nicholas Longworth, subsequently appointed Hon. Thomas M. Bell, of Georgia; Hon. John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut; Hon. William W. Hastings, of Oklahoma; Hon. C. William Ramseyer, of Iowa; Hon. W. H. Sproul, of Kansas; Hon. Charles L. Faust, of Missouri; Hon. C. R. Crisp, of Georgia; Hon. Clarence F. Lea, of California; Hon. John J. O'Connor, of New York; and Hon. William W. Arnold, of Illinois, and said representatives visited Atlanta and were present at the exercises referred to:This is an extremely interesting resolution. It emphasizes the fact that "official recognition" is given by the Republican Congress to the Confederate memorial to the slaveholders' rebellion; delicate allusion is also made to the traitor coin in the support given "on a prior occasion evidenced in such notable and historic manner."Resolved, That the thanks of the Stone Mountain Monumental Association are hereby extended to the Congress of the United States for their gracious act in giving official recognition to this auspicious event in the manner recited, together with sincere assurances of the grateful appreciation of this association and all connected therewith, we being desirous of formally testifying to the high regard we entertain and feel for this renewed evidence of the sympathy and support of the Congress for the great monument being built upon Stone Mountain, on a prior occasion evidenced in such notable and historic manner.
Why was this absurd unveiling perpetrated? The answer is: in spite of the financial aid received from the sale of traitor coins, the Association was without funds: this "unveiling" was just a gesture whereby members of Congress were notified, visibly, that the Stone Mountain Confederate Monumental Association needed more Congressional aid and that they were in a receptive mood for more financial "support." When the time is ripe, they will seek it. Will future Republican administrations and congresses he as docile to Confederate bidding as those just ended?
But what is the meaning of all these Republican crookings of the knee to the Confederacy and its leaders which we have just shown?
There are few citizens so dull of understanding that they will believe that all of these tributes have been paid by Republicans to Southern Confederate Democrats out of pure magnanimity, or out of a disinterested desire to recognize the principles of slavery and State Sovereignty as laudable ends for which to strive; and the more particularly will this be difficult for anyone to believe when he remembers that in the recognition of the Confederacy the Republican leaders are risking the alienation of two large groups which have always been in the Republican fold: namely, the Union soldiers and their affiliated organizations and the Negroes.
It must, therefore, have been a powerful influence which could cause the Republican leaders to forget the faith of their fathers and risk the alienation of these two groups, even though the passage of such acts as the traitor coin law and the restoration of Arlington were accomplished with all the secrecy possible under the circumstances, and information concerning them consistently and persistently suppressed in the North. This very secrecy and suppression are, of course, an acknowledgement that these acts will not bear public scrutiny nor meet with public approval among the rank and file of Republicans.
What, then, was the secret influence ? It can be answered in two statements of fact: the headquarters of the Stone Mountain Confederate Monumental Association were in Atlanta, Georgia; the Ku Klux Klan national headquarters, from which the imperial wizard of the Invisible Empire issues his commands, were also in Atlanta. The Klan is the offspring of the Confederate South, but has extended all over the United States. As its descriptive name indicates, the invisible empire, to be such, must be Democratic in the South, to control, and Republican in the North, in order to be really imperial. The control of the Klan, however, was in Atlanta.
If the reader has a moment of doubt, let him recall the pre-election speeches in the 1924 Presidental campaign. Mr. Davis and Mr. LaFollette were strong in their denunciation of the Klan; but Mr. Coolidge never voiced a single word of opposition to that organization. Then, when the Republican Vice-Presidental candidate, Charles G. Dawes, made his opening campaign speech in Maine, he violently assailed the Klan; but he, like Mr. Vestal of Indiana, evidently was made to see a great light, or to feel a powerful influence; for, after this maiden effort against the Klan, he was silent forevermore -- with a silence that was most oppressive.
Gradually the newspapers are revealing this close connection between Republicanism and the Klan in the North: in such States as Maine, New York, and Indiana the influence is profound. Indeed, we need no better example of its power than that it closed the mouth of Mr. Dawes, a man noted for saying what he thinks without restraint.
[1] July, 1925.
[2] Jones' Reminiscences, p. 211.
[3] O. R., Vol. 97, p. 92a
[4] Cong. Record, January 4, 1928, p. 1012.
[5] A. J., Dec 22, 1927.
[6] Cong. Record, May 29, 1928, p. 1075a
"It is well that [the murder] happened," wrote Francis Lieber, prominent among those who favored punishing the South. "Lincoln could not die a more glorious death." Some detected the hand of god in the crime. Divine will had kept Lincoln in power only until he could be replaced by a better man. This was the opinion of Charles Sumner, one of Mary Lincoln's favorite social escorts, who wrote of feeling sorry for the late president's family but consoled himself with a belief that "his deazth will do more for the cause than any human life."SOURCE: Dark Union, Gutteridge and Neff, p. 152.
I did not want to be overly harsh because #3 seems like a very intense person, in a Boston Corbett sort of way.
Boy, are -YOU- ever confused.
Blacks don't vote Democrat???
You must have forgotten your meds again.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing says you must be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. You are an epiphany of stupid for me. Duh.
ROFTLM*O!
Nope. Just waiting for you to post it.
Maybe it is you who needs to go back and re-read the thread. Mary Todd Lincoln's favorite color has as much to do with the legality of secession as does Article IV, section 1. Article IV, section 1 puts no limitations on the acts of a state as you have claimed repeatedly. Your ability to read for yourself and use your imagination has apparently failed you once more.
The words of the Constitution is all I need.
To do what, be a productive member of an anarchy? I'm sure the Mass supreme court thought the words of the Mass Constitution was all they needed to delcare gay marriage an inalienable right. Do you not get that everyone abiding by their own interpretation of the constitution is a call for chaos?
I'm not the one that has to quote this guy or that guy to support lies, I can just quote the Constitution.
So then, your lies are so outrageous that you cannot even corroborate them using the lunatics who brought the war in the first place?
If it's documentation when you post it, why isn't it when I post it?
It's 'documentation' that does not support what you are saying. Much like Article IV, Section 1, you post a link that does not say what you then insist repeatedly it does. It's sad, really, when someone who claims all they need is a personal reading of the Constitution has proven so oft that they cannot read for comprehension and understanding.
It's much more accurate to read the Constitution for yourself
anarchy
and that way you don't end up going by precedent,
anarchy
but by what each person gets from the words of the Constitution.
anarchy
If everyone went by their own mind,
anarchy
then we wouldn't be in the shape we're in today where the Constitution is not followed for the most part.
We'd be living in the paradise of an anarchy.
I don't though.
anarchist.
Prisoner exchange was offered, as stand watie has already pointed out to you. Northern political leaders found their deaths at Andersonville more valuable than their lives.
From your 833: "The election of delegates needed all the legitimacy the Texas legislature could give it, because what evidence still exists indicates that the election procedures did not even meet the minimal standards of the day. Delegates were often elected by voice votes at public meetings. Unionists were discouraged from attending such meetings or chose to ignore the process because they considered it illegal. As a result the delegates overwhelmingly favored secession."
What is missing is this alleged "evidence". Was anything illegal was ever charged and proven in a court of law? Or is this a case of Union arsonists being prevented from burning the polling places?
Fallacy of distraction: straw man. The Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. The supreme law of the land is whatever the People say it is. The People made, and can unmake, the Constitution. The People (alone) are above the Constitution, and the Constitution is their creature and therefore is not above the People.
I think you're just resisting the point -- which is called "slothful induction" and a reason for awarding a debate on the spot.
[You, quoting me] The next level is constitutional and treaty law. They are made by the Sovereign and obeyed voluntarily by the Sovereign. They can also be broken by the Sovereign, by sovereign acts.
[You, resisting the obvious] Not when they ratified the Constitution.
Oh, yeah, when they ratified the Constitution. Before they ratified the Constitution. And after they ratified the Constitution. For as long as the People draw breath, bucko, they are the Sovereign, which is the alpha principle of American government. The People are the ontological Power in this country -- legally, and every other way. If you say differently, you're a traitor and a renegade.
And God says in Romans that He sanctions the powers that be (if they be of Him), so you just can't break a law when you feel like it and the Constitution is our law.
By quoting God, I take it that you recognize the paramountcy of the People -- but here is where you again employ a fallacy of distraction. I wasn't talking about breaking the law, I was talking about unmaking the law -- which the People have the right and power to do at will.
People, up here.
Constitutions, laws, governments, and officialdom, down there.
Get it?
I don't normally speak to people like this, but you are showing signs of mulish obduracy, rebellion, slothful induction, and plain old bad faith in argument.
But I won't wait on you, nor cater to you.
Point!
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.