Posted on 02/25/2019 6:58:42 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
Eight players from the Ole Miss men's basketball team knelt during the national anthem before Saturday's home game against Georgia in response to a Confederacy rally near the arena.
Minutes before the game, both teams formed lines for the anthem. As "The Star-Spangled Banner" began, six Rebels players -- who appeared to be KJ Buffen, D.C. Davis, Brian Halums, Luis Rodriguez, Devontae Shuler and Bruce Stevens -- knelt one by one. Two more players -- appearing to be Breein Tyree and Franco Miller Jr. -- took a knee on the song's final line.
The game was being played while two pro-Confederacy groups organized a march onto the campus in Oxford, Mississippi.
"The majority of it was we saw one of our teammates doing it and we just didn't want him to be alone,'' Ole Miss scoring leader Tyree said after his team's 72-71 victory. "We're just tired of these hate groups coming to our school and portraying our campus like it's our actual university having these hate groups in our school."
(snip)
Ole Miss coach Kermit Davis said he wasn't aware beforehand that players were going to kneel.
"This was all about the hate groups that came to our community to try to spread racism and bigotry," Davis said. "It's created a lot of tension for our campus. Our players made an emotional decision to show these people they're not welcome on our campus, and we respect our players' freedom and ability to choose that.''
(Excerpt) Read more at espn.com ...
But completely relevant to the South's reason for starting the war.
Confiscation Acts cannot repeal Article IV, Section 2. People keep lying to themselves when they claim that something specifically forbidden by the Constitution can be overridden by a vote of Congress.
The Supreme Court disagreed with your somewhat eccentric analysis of the Constitution and Article IV.
Honest people will recognize this was a case of refusing to follow constitutional law because they didn't like that particular law.
Or more accurately, a case of refusing to accept a Supreme Court decision as valid because you don't like it.
The North invaded the South. The South did not invade the North. (till much later.)
The reasons why the North sent armies into the South is why there was a war. What the South was doing internally prior to that is irrelevant to why Northern armies invaded them.
The Supreme Court disagreed with your somewhat eccentric analysis of the Constitution and Article IV.
No rational person gives a sh*t what a War court frighted of Lincoln claims, and most especially we do not give a sh*t when it clearly contradicts the actual wording of the Constitution itself.
I can read. You can read. Don't pull this "appeal to authority" crap when the meaning is clearly not in dispute. Freeing slaves was illegal under the US Constitution. Even if you could make an argument that it was legal during the war, you cannot make a valid argument that it was legal after the war, because it is expressly forbidden according to Constitutional law.
Or more accurately, a case of refusing to accept a Supreme Court decision as valid because you don't like it.
My liking it has nothing to do with it. My being able to read is all it takes. So long as any state had a law requiring servitude, the constitution requires they be returned to the people to whom their labor is due under that state's law.
It doesn't have a "but....but...but Rebellion!" clause in there anywhere. Even the assertion of "Rebellion" does not stand up to an honest grasp of the term.
As Chief Justice Salmon P Chase said, "Secession is not rebellion."
"Rebellion" was a Lincoln created propaganda tool, and he would arrest people who disagreed with him publicly.
Simple minds can never come up with a way to protest without disrespecting the country, veterans and cops that make their protest possible. Idiots all.
And the U.S. invaded Japan. Had Japan not started the war then the U.S. wouldn't have invaded anything.
No rational person gives a sh*t what a War court frighted of Lincoln claims, and most especially we do not give a sh*t when it clearly contradicts the actual wording of the Constitution itself.
Rationality seems to be in short supply in your posts. Every decision you disagree with is automatically wrong. Every justice you dislike is automatically biased.
My liking it has nothing to do with it. My being able to read is all it takes.
Only if we accept your opinion as fact, which given your track record is very, very hard to do.
As Chief Justice Salmon P Chase said, "Secession is not rebellion."
Legal secession is not rebellion. Rebellion is rebellion. The South engaged in the later.
In post 19, I said that all those who fought honorably in the Civil War are together today with Jesus.
I’ll explain why I said this: The Billie Yanks because of their willingness to die to free the slaves. The Johnny Rebs because they were defending their homeland. I do not hold either morally culpable for the country’s failure to find a way, peacefully, to end slavery (for example, the way England ended slavery, with compensated emancipation).
But some people want to describe the Billie Yanks as evil invaders, saying they were not dying to free the slaves. Among these people are the left-wing extremists and also some who - for who knows what reason - hold on to the lost cause. What a strange combination!
The world is a messed up place. So many men, boys really, killed and killing others, mostly in pointless wars. The government gets away with this because every now and then we actually find ourselves in a war that we have to win. The day is coming when these wars will end. This is something I have to believe. In the meanwhile, it is for us, the living, to soldier on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy6AOGRsR80
Had we maintained a fortress overlooking Tokyo bay, and had we threatened their shipping with those cannons, and had they attacked this fortress on THEIR territory, then you might have an analogy.
What Japan did was come into *OUR* territory, kill 3,000 of our people, destroy many billions of dollars worth of equipment, and then attacked all our other ships at sea and our troops in other lands.
You apparently don't have the wit to grasp the difference between what Japan did and what the Confederates did. The Confederates spent three months asking us to leave, and even said they would refrain from attacking if the commander would give his word not to fire on them in the event that the *WAR FLEET* which Lincoln sent to attack them, fired cannons at them.
Major Anderson refused, and so he left them no choice but to either neutralize the fort, or be attacked from two sides at once.
Of course there is really no point in appealing to your sense of reason on this matter, because you consciously reject any information that doesn't fit into your preferred world view.
Every decision you disagree with is automatically wrong.
You keep trying to make this about me. You have your cause and effect reverse. I disagree with it because it's clearly wrong with an objective reading of what the constitution actually says. Were it correct, I would admit that it was correct, but since it clearly violates Article IV, Section 2, I cannot agree with it.
I feel the same way about Abortion (14th amendment.) Gay marriage. (14th Amendment) Banning Prayer in Schools. (14th Amendment.) Anchor babies. (14th Amendment.) and a whole host of other clearly incorrect decisions by the Supreme Court, such as Wickard, and Kelo.
Legal secession is not rebellion. Rebellion is rebellion. The South engaged in the later.
Now who is disagreeing with the opinion of a Supreme Court Justice? Justice Chase was clearly referring to the Southern secession. He even went so far as to advise Federal Prosecutors that bringing Jefferson Davis to trial would be a serious mistake.
He told them they would lose in court, everything they had won on the battle field, and so they wisely took his advice, and dropped the charges against Davis.
Lincoln asserted that the South was in "rebellion", but this was a blatant lie, and he put this forth for propaganda purposes. An entire state cannot be in rebellion. Only a portion thereof can rebel. If an entire state approves of it, it's "consent of the governed."
Lincoln was fond of manipulating the language to suit his preferences, like calling a fleet of mostly warships a "Supply mission."
Yes, it was going to supply mostly cannon balls. If he wanted a "supply" mission, he would have sent cargo ships. Sending troops and warships makes it a Combat mission.
Lincoln was promoting an amendment to strengthen protections for slavery, and he said he wanted to make this amendment "express and irrevocable."
How can your mind pivot so fast from Lincoln urging further protection for slavery, to accepting the claim that a month later, he was launching a war to end slavery?
Doesn't the fact that Lincoln was promoting an amendment to protect slavery make you go "Huh?"
We’ve been down this road before.
I just find it strange that people can dismiss the fact that Lincoln was trying to protect slavery.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
“So, these mensas are kneeling in protest against the USA (which defeated the CSA in a war) because someone acknowledged the CSA (the defeated foe that no longer exists?).”
Of course Lincoln himself said that the CSA never existed. He refused to meet with delegations from a government that he said didn’t exist.
He called up the Union army to put down rebellious fellow Americans who were obstructing Federal law and seizing government property.
And I find it amazing that people dismiss the fact that the South rebelled to defend slavery.
Lincoln issued a Proclamation three days after Ft Sumter that is as close to a Declaration of War as you will find concerning the Civil War:
In it he also calls for Congress to convene a special session on July 4, 1861, where he gives his reasoning for calling up and using the army:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/message-to-congress-in-special-session/
What you don’t find in either of these is a mention of fighting to end slavery. Lincoln is waging war against rebellious fellow Americans in order to preserve the Union. He is fighting to put down secession.
“About half didn’t. The other half, the ones associated with the cause the players were protesting, were fighting to keep slavery in place.”
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
Ignoring the fact that your statement isn't close to being true, had the U.S. had a facility in Tokyo bay and had Japan bombarded into surrender then that would have been an act of war, just like the Southern actions in 1861.
You apparently don't have the wit to grasp the difference between what Japan did and what the Confederates did.
I have a great sense of humor which is why I find your crap so amusing.
You keep trying to make this about me.
You're offering your opinion and claiming it as fact so who else is it about other than you?
Now who is disagreeing with the opinion of a Supreme Court Justice?
Well I could always claim bias on his part, frightened of rebel retaliation, or not giving a sh*t about what the Constitution said. But instead I agree that Chase was correct. Legal secession was not rebellion. But that's not what the South engaged in. T Justice Chase was clearly referring to the Southern secession. He even went so far as to advise Federal Prosecutors that bringing Jefferson Davis to trial would be a serious mistake.
And yet he also ruled that the Southern secession was illegal in the Texas v. White decision.
Lincoln asserted that the South was in "rebellion", but this was a blatant lie, and he put this forth for propaganda purposes. An entire state cannot be in rebellion. Only a portion thereof can rebel. If an entire state approves of it, it's "consent of the governed.
What nonsense. Are you claiming that 100 percent of the people in every rebel state supported secession? If they didn't then wouldn't that mean part of the state was rebelling?
“The constitutionality of which was upheld by the Supreme Court in their 1862 Prize Cases decision.”
Just to be clear, are you saying the Union Supreme Court during the war voted to approve of the Union war?
You should add: and after the war the Union Supreme Court voted to say both the Union war and the Union Supreme Court was right all along.
And you should add: and later the Union Supreme Court voted to approve killing babies regardless of race, color, or creed.
You must be so proud.
“As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.”
But doubts still exist.
And for those that want to argue that President Lincoln “fought to free the slaves” there is enough ambiguity in the ole’ rail-splitter’s words and actions that a strong case CAN be made that, as President, he used the military to violently overthrow the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution.
A strong case can be made for the opposite as well. The doubts still exist.
So people were holding a rally to honor those who died fighting for the South,and these basketball players kneel to Protest the Flag that was carried by the Northern States to Free the Slaves! These players are morons
Not at all. I'm saying that the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a act of Congress which happened to be used to combat the Southern rebellion. Sorry if that wasn't clear to you.
You should add: and after the war the Union Supreme Court voted to say both the Union war and the Union Supreme Court was right all along.
You could say that. I would say that after the rebellion was over the United States Supreme Court had a chance to rule on the constitutionality of the Southern acts of unilateral secession and determined that they were, in fact, unconstitutional.
You must be so proud.
Your contempt for the judiciary is duly noted, and is in keeping with the attitude of the Davis regime towards the third branch of government as well.
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.