Posted on 03/21/2008 1:43:24 PM PDT by cowboyway
Many heads turned in Ringgold Wednesday when they saw an African-American man dressed in a Confederate soldier's uniform, carrying a Confederate flag.
It wasn't a joke. H.K. Edgerton came to Ringgold to make a bold statement - he opposes city leader's removing the Confederate flag from the city's flag pole.
Edgerton says the Confederate flag is misunderstood, feared and hated because people are trying to be politically correct - which he says desecrates the honor and real meaning of the Civil War era emblem.
"I'm here because your town council climbed into bed with all the politically correct folks who are practicing social, cultural genocide here in the south land of America," Edgerton said.
Edgerton is marching against that cultural genocide as he calls it, and is getting a warm welcome from people in Ringgold who support his fight for the Confederate flag.
Jim Caldwell meet Edgerton carrying the flag and said "it's history, part of history and it don't need to be swept under the rug."
Edgerton is from Asheville, North Carolina, where he's also the immediate past president of the N.A.A.C.P. there. His visit to Ringgold marks the five-year anniversary of the same march he made from Asheville to Austin Texas - 20 miles a day, six days a week.
He says he has no respect for modern day civil rights activists who as he puts it, trash the Confederate flag.
"Just pointing to those scally-wags like Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, who climbed into bed with these folks to increase their coffers to continue tainting and disturbing history," Edgerton said.
Two years ago many people packed Ringgold's city hall to protest the move by city leaders to get rid of the Confederate flag. It flies no more on the town poles.
Edgerton says many people don't understand that black men, alongside whites, fought for the Confederacy and the principals it was founded on.
"So here I am, trying to bring an understanding that there was folks who look like me who earned a place of honor and dignity here under this flag. And this flag is just as much for folks who look like me as any white man in the south land of America," Edgerton said.
I had this debate a few years ago here, and took the time then to research it and refute every piece of evidence the states right lobby could spew. I dont have that kind of time now, and consider you all to be on the flat-earther level.
This site on slavery Myth Conceptions (including the States rights myth) claims that the only State right debated in congress leading up to succession was the right to own slaves.
http://chicora.org/myth_conceptions.htm
This site argues that theres no such thing as States rights, only individual rights.
http://www.geocities.com/islavin2001/Reflections/StatesRightsMyth.html
Something else I recall from a few years ago was that the States Rights Confederacy made it against the law for a State to outlaw slavery. So they were only interested in the States right to enslave people, but it was illegal for a State to outlaw enslaving people.
Are you beginning to realize how STIPID the States rights argument is yet???
Hows about explaining the American flag/Malcolm X connection cuz I can’t see it.
Both are symbols of independence, freedom and pride in rebellion for many displaying them. They both represent a moderate to high degree of racism by many displaying them, not all. The Confederacy was a nation founded on the right to dehumanize and enslave blacks and Malcolm X was a white hating racist, so both are ethnically divisive. Both are a lousy way to make a clear point about freedom..
If you want to be stuck on stupid, flym high baby!
Then go away. You're just another one of those rabid Southern haters. You can almost see the spittle spewing from your pie hole as you type your hate.
This site on slavery Myth Conceptions (including the States rights myth) claims that the only State right debated in congress leading up to succession was the right to own slaves.
One more time: Slavery was the occasion. States rights was the cause.
What you fail to realize is that the War for Southern Independence would have occured even if the first slave had never been brought to American soil by the yankee slave traders. Read The South Under Siege by Frank Conner.
This site argues that theres no such thing as States rights, only individual rights.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Are you beginning to realize how STIPID the States rights argument is yet???
Are you beginning to realize how stupid you are?
“You brought up ‘offensiveness’. That’s usually the first step in any politically correct attempt to silence free speech.”
True, but an infinite number of things can be called offensive, without justifying their proponents to accuse others of violating their First Amendment rights.
“With the help of so called conservatives like yourself”
Show me one thing I’ve said here that’s inconsistent with conservatism. You’re just making an bigger fool of yourself.
From your post#4:
"the interpretation of both and the potential offensiveness of both vary equal."
Conservatives don't use 'offensiveness' or political correctness to try to leverage advantage in debate.
That's a liberal tactic.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Again, the euphemism states rights taken from the 10th Amendment is nothing more than an attempt at prohibiting federal interference with individual rights or their administration through state law. It does not literally give states rights. It just restricts federal authority.
Are you arguing that it should have been within a “state’s right” to enslave people? If not, then restrictions on slavery were never a “states right” issue as Confederate propagandist claimed anyway!
And I’m still waiting on your explanation of how the Confederacy could have succeeded for “states rights” reasons and then made it illegal for states to have the right to outlaw the one right that they overwhelmingly argued for.
“Conservatives don’t use ‘offensiveness’ or political correctness to try to leverage advantage in debate. That’s a liberal tactic.”
It’s libertarians, not conservatives, that abstain from using the word “offensive”. There are a number of things conservatives promote as offensive in order to promote good behavior - bad language, racsim, America bashing, Gay sex (at least male gay sex) and general rudeness fist come to mind. Wearing the Confederate flag and the Malcolm X symbol potentially fall into a couple of those categories.
From Amendment X:
are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Read 'respectively'. Like the Second, the Tenth is crystal clear.
Furthermore, 'states rights' is not a 'euphemism'. States rights is directly from the 'Bill of Rights' of which the Tenth Amendment is an integral part.
Are you arguing that it should have been within a states right to enslave people?
The argument is about the ability of the people of a state to choose their own destiny.
And Im still waiting on your explanation of how the Confederacy could have succeeded for states rights reasons and then made it illegal for states to have the right to outlaw the one right that they overwhelmingly argued for.
When did that happen?
BTW, for a guy that has no time for this stuff you're sure spending a lot of time on this stuff.
Yes, and it says exactly what I just told you, prohibiting the federal government from interfering with "powers not delegated" to them that can be delegated to states by the people who as individuals are the only entities that have "rights".
Neither the term state rights nor the literal concept of a states having a rights appears in our Constitution or Declaration of Independence (as my previous link showed). It is not part of any philosophical foundation for our government that I'm aware of, but it happens to be essential to the foundation of communism. ;^)
Rights belong to people and only to people. They are an integral part of what is required for us to act according to our nature, presumably God given. They do not belong to groups or to collectives of any kind. They do not require the services of another as would a "right" to healthcare for instance. They are contracts between free men that can not be bestowed upon entities such as animals that have no ability (or at least no potential ability in general) to respect the rights of others. That's the fundamental nature of rights.
There is absolutely NO right of a collective such as a state, especially one to enslave an innocent man simply because as you say, the 10th amendment recognizes the "ability of the people of a state to choose their own destiny" by majority vote. Bullsh~t!
The Second Amendment used the term "right" explicitly regarding individuals. The tenth amendment used the turn "powers not delegated" to apply to the States. Therefore, the states have only delegated authority from the people (who do have rights) and as long as it does not conflict with the authority the people delegated to the federal government through the Constitution.
When did that happen?
It took almost 20 seconds to google, confederate constitution outlaw slavery". The second document returned compares the US and CSA constitution side by side, article by article, section by section by section. This is the summary:
SUMMARY: Overall, the CSA constitution does not radically alter the federal system that was set up under the United States constitution. It is thus very debatable as to whether the CSA was a significantly more pro-"states' rights" country (as supporters claim) in any meaningful sense. At least three states rights are explicitly taken away- the freedom of states to grant voting rights to non-citizens, the freedom of states to outlaw slavery within their borders, and the freedom of states to trade freely with each other.You're right on one thing though... I have no time for this. I'm done.States only gain four minor rights under the Confederate system- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." When people champion the cause of reclaiming state power from the feds, are matters like these at the tops of their lists of priorities?
As previously noted, the CSA constitution does not modify many of the most controversial (from a states' rights perspective) clauses of the American constitution, including the "Supremacy" clause (6/1/3), the "Commerce" clause (1/8/3) and the "Necessary and Proper" clause (1/8/18). Nor does the CSA take away the federal government's right to suspend habeus corpus or "suppress insurrections."
As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Indeed, CSA constitution seems to barely stop short of making owning slaves mandatory. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of future anti-slave law or policy will be unconstitutional. People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" until the cows come home, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land.
In the end, however, many of the most interesting changes introduced in the CSA constitution have nothing to do with federalism or slavery at all. The President's term limit and line-item veto, along with the various fiscal restraints, and the ability of cabinet members to answer questions on the floor of Congress are all innovative, neutral ideals whose merits may still be worth pondering today.
Forgot the link: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
“Are you beginning to realize how STIPID the States rights argument is yet???”
I’m guessing you mean “stupid”? And the answer is Nope.
This little amendment just happens to blow your specious argument totally out of the water as far as the “myth” of states rights. So too convenient for it to be ignored.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/news/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=505522
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXD/is_2006_May_18/ai_n16373610
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DB143EF937A15751C0A96E948260
http://www.psychcrime.org/articles/arizonadecision.htm
That is so cool! You don’t have to understand the constitution. You can just read headlines to identify constitutional principles. Look, there really is a “separation of church and state” clause in the Constitution. The NY Times says a judge just ruled it so: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/opinion/28tue1.html
So after being shown how rights are unique to individuals, you send me 4 links to where reporters use the term “states rights” as shorthand for the non-federal “authority delegated” to states by the people for what? To insist that rights literally do rest with states? Especially the right to enslave people by majority vote? Hey, I’m glad you’re on our side defending against the tyranny of the left! ;^)
Complete nonsense. He wrote the proclamation, how could he sign it 'as an afterthought'? "Hmmm...let's see... January 1st...had breakfast, check...greeted the people, check...wasn't there something else I was going to do today? Oh yeah! Now where did I put that emancipation thing...."
Obviously.
Most southron fanatics will equate opposition to the southern rebellion with liberalism. In their eyes, Reagan must have been a commie.
A state's right to do what? Other presidents had told states they couldn't perform a certain act. Other presidents had enacted tariffs. And states hadn't seceded. But Lincoln was the first president elected on a platform determined to limit slavery. And the South seceded because of it. The south seceded because of what they saw as a threat to their institution of slavery.
And what makes you think that the power to secede unilaterally is not a power prohibited to the states?
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.