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.
Yes, just like the SCOTUS heard cases pertaining to “THE SEPARATION OF CHIRCH AND STATE” as the NTY link reports in exactly the same way. And in both those cases they are only slogans (granted, not euphemisms) that more easily communicate approximations. And as far as I can tell, none of the judges in any of your links ever uttered the phrase “state right”, much less rulled on the principle. It was only said by the reporters.
So unless you consider headlines and reporter characterizations to be the ultimate authority on constitutional principles, you need to either find a judicial ruling that explicitly says that states have rights (it’s non-existent) or logically refute Post #30.
Well there was no precedent since no state had ever tried seceding before, or ever really threatened it before. The one occasion most often mentioned is the Hartford Convention, and while that minority advocating secession had been voted down very early on, the Southern states did have an opinion on this whole secession business. The Richmond Enquirer gave it's opinion in November 1814:
"The Union is in danger. Turn to the convention in Hartford, and learn to tremble at the madness of its authors. How far will those madmen advance? Though they may conceal from you the project of disunion, though a few of them may have even concealed if from themselves, yet who will pretend to set the bounds to the rage of disaffection? Once false step after another may lead them to resistance to the laws, to a treasonable neutrality, to a war against the Government of the United States. In truth, the first act of resistance to the law is treason to the United States. Are you ready for this state of things? Will you support the men who would plunge you into this ruin?
No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together, can only unknit. The same formality, which forged the links of the Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason--Treason to all intents and purposes.
Any other doctrine, such as that which has been lately held forth by the ‘Federal Republican’ that any one State may withdraw itself from the Union, is abominable heresy – which strips its author of every possible pretension to the name or character of Federalist.
We call, therefore, upon the government of the Union to exert its energies, when the season shall demand it – and seize the first traitor who shall spring out of the hotbed of the convention of Harford. This illustrious Union, which has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the pride of America and the wonder of the world must not be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring hearts of a few malcontents. The Union must be saved, when any one shall dare to assail it."
What changed in the following 46 years?
Most historians agree that Lincoln was advised not to issue his proclamation and make slavery an issue of the war for political and reelection reasons. The announcement wasn't popular in the army and in most sections of the country, so your claim that he issued the EP for those reasons isn't supported by any evidence that I'm aware of.
Are YOU serious? The EP had as much effect in the South as a Bush issued Proclamation to Mexico would have to stop the flood of Mexicans into the US; IOW, none.
It had a lot of impact in the South. There were over 200,000 black Union soldiers during the war, most of whom came from Southern states. Without the Emancipation Proclamation then legally they would have had to have been returned to their owners. With the Emancipation Proclamation then they didn't. Also, the issuing of the proclamation doomed - forever - any chance of European recognition of the confederacy and intervention on their behalf since Palmerston was not willing to ally his government with a regime and cause so closely tied to the preservation of slavery.
Soooo, you're a Barak Obama disciple then?
That's a rather stupid assumption to make.
”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.”Do the people of a state have 'rights'? From The "States' Rights" Myth”
The first 9 amendments either directly mention rights of the people, or imply the word rights while referring to them. The 10th refers only to powers of governments, as does the 11th. The other amendments are similarly constructed, many including the specific phrase (or variation thereof), "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." This can be re-constructed to read, "Congress shall have power to enforce these rights by appropriate legislation.III. TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION
Article I, Section 1, begins, "All legislative Powers herein granted . . ."
Article I, Section 8, begins, "Congress shall have the power . . ."
Article II, Section 1, begins, "The executive Power . . ." (Other "powers" are specifically referenced.)
Article III, Section 1, begins, "The judicial Power of the United States . . ."In all cases, references to what the government may or may not do is termed powers, not rights. The reverse is true for persons, whether individually or collectively.
To me, the distinction is not just an important one, but a crucial one. No government has a right to anything, including its own existence; strictly speaking, it has no existence of its own. It is, instead, an artifice we have created to secure our natural rights. Our rights, not its own. The most a government can claim appearing as rights is authority to use its powers for the purposes designated. This authority is important, as the founders found out under the Articles of Confederation the result of a government with no powers or authority; but it is not identical to rights. Any discussion of government "rights" begs the question of an individual or individuals exercising authority to execute government powers, merely because they have the power(s) thus granted.
"The powers... are reserved to the States".
Okay.
Your turn.GIBONEY V. EMPIRE STORAGE & ICE CO., 336 U. S. 490 (1949)
The cases cited in note 21 of the Thornhill opinion include the following, strongly emphasizing states' powers to regulate their internal industrial and economic affairs and rejecting contentions that challenged regulations violated the Federal Constitution. Senn v. Tile Layers Union, 301 U. S. 468; West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 379; Nebbia v. New York, 291 U. S. 502; Dorchy v. Kansas, 272 U. S. 306; Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U. S. 194; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366. Another case cited in note 21 of the Thornhill opinion was Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U. S. 436. It also involved a violation of the federal antitrust laws, and, once again, this Court sustained the power of the Government to enjoin trade practices deemed in violation of those laws. The only other case cited in note 21, Labor Board v. Newport News Co., 308 U. S. 241, sustained an order against an employer which restrained it from using its influence over employees to interfere with their activities.OKLAHOMA TAX COMM'N V. TEXAS COMPANY, 336 U. S. 342 (1949)
Our present problem lies on the constitutional level. It requires reconsideration of former decisions specifically in point, together with later ones deviating in rationale. It is of substantial importance both for the states' powers of taxation and for the subjects on which they may impinge. Moreover, even though the immediate questions are closely related to federal policies concerning Indian lands, they are equally tangent to considerations affecting other types of situation raising questions of immunity. For these reasons it will not be amiss to consider the questions in the context of two conflicting courses of decision.
Do the people of a state have 'rights'?
Yes.
Dude-unclear on the concept!
"The powers... are reserved to the States".
Ok, “The powers are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Interesting that you keep leaving off “the people”. Just who do you think made up the 13 colonies, giraffes? I don’t buy and have not ever bought the revionist history that crops when the South, seccession etc come up. The words of the Founding Fathers speak for themselves and need no spin to fit a modern day agenda. The words of the Southern men who formed the Southern government speak for themselves as do the words of the people in the Southern states.
NS== the revisionist history extends to you as well.
Just for fun, since you’ll find some way I’m sure of spinning this and I don’t care if you don’t like Wiki or not, its convienent:/
Northeast United States and the Hartford Convention
New England most often considered seceding from the union: in 1803 over the Louisiana Purchase, in 1808 over the embargo of British trade, in 1814 over war with Britain, in 1843 over the annexation of Texas, and in 1847 over the Mexican War.
[3] Opposition to the War of 1812 (which lasted until 1815) spurred Federalists party members from the north-eastern U.S. to convene informally the 1814 Hartford Convention where there was some discussion of secession from the nation. The war ended soon afterwards, and revelations about the secession discussions politically destroyed the Federalists.
[edit] South Carolina
During the presidential term of Andrew Jackson, South Carolina had its own semi-secession movement due to the “Tariffs of Abomination” which threatened both South Carolina’s economy and the Union. Andrew Jackson also threatened to send Federal Troops to put down the movement and to hang the leader of the secessionists from the highest tree in South Carolina. Also due to this, Jackson’s vice president, John C. Calhoun, who supported the movement and wrote the essay “The South Carolina Exposition and Protest”, became the first US vice-president to resign. South Carolina also threatened to secede in 1850 over the issue of California’s statehood. It became the first state to secede from the Union on December 20, 1860 and later joined with the other southern states in the Confederacy.
[edit] Confederate States of America
One of the most famous unsuccessful secession movements was the case of the Southern states of the United States. Secession from the United States was declared in thirteen states, eleven of which joined together to form the Confederate States of America. The eleven states were Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida. Note that these are not listed by order of secession; South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union, on December 20, 1860; Tennessee was the last, and seceded on June 8, 1861. In addition, in Missouri and Kentucky secession was declared by its supporters but did not become effective, and was opposed by pro-Union state governments. This secession movement brought about the American Civil War. The position of the Union was that the Confederacy was not a sovereign nation but instead a collection of states in revolt.
[edit] West Virginia
The western counties of Virginia making up what is now West Virginia seceded from Virginia (which had joined the Confederacy) and became the 35th state of the U.S. during the course of the American Civil War, and remained separated after the war ended.
[edit] Texas secession from Mexico
The Republic of Texas successfully seceded from Mexico in 1836. In 1845 Texas joined the United States as a full-fledged state. Mexico refused to recognize Texas independence and warned the U.S. that annexation meant war. The Mexican–American War followed in 1846, and the United States defeated Mexico.
[edit] Recent efforts in the United States
Examples of both local and state secession movements can be cited over the last 25 years. Some secessionist movements to create new states have failed, others are ongoing.
There was an attempt by Staten Island to break away from New York City in the late 1980s and early 1990s (See: City of Greater New York). Around the same time, there was a similar movement to separate Northeast Philadelphia from the rest of the city of Philadelphia. San Fernando Valley lost a vote to separate from Los Angeles in 2002 but has seen increased attention to its infrastructure needs (See: San Fernando Valley secession movement). Several towns in Vermont including Killington recently explored a secession request to allow them to join New Hampshire over claims that they are not getting adequate return of state resources from their state tax contributions. The mock 1982 secessionist protest by the Conch Republic in the Florida Keys resulted in an ongoing source of local pride and tourist amusement.
Advocates in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, with off and on intensity, have called for it to become a separate 51st state (sometimes with northern Wisconsin) called “Superior”. Similarly some in the Little Egypt region of Illinois want to separate due to what they consider Chicagoan control over the legislature and economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession#United_States
It's also interesting how you keep forgetting the "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states..." part.
The words of the Founding Fathers speak for themselves and need no spin to fit a modern day agenda.
Fine. How about a quote from one of the Founding Fathers supporting the concept of unilateral secession as practiced by the Southern states and we'll let them speak for themselves.
The words of the Southern men who formed the Southern government speak for themselves as do the words of the people in the Southern states.
They do indeed. And by far the single most important reason given for their rebellion is defense of their institution of slavery.
Just for fun, since you’ll find some way I’m sure of spinning this and I don’t care if you don’t like Wiki or not, its convienent.
Use whatever source you want. It won't change fiction into facts or reduce your revisionist tendencies. And the fact is that not a single state attempted secession, not a single state threatened secession, not a single state even seriously discussed secession prior to the Southern rebellion. And for all you know, had any of those states tried secession they would have gone about it the legal way, with the consent of the other states.
Keep spinning, it might convince somebody somewhere.
But not you. The truth is wasted on Southron supporters.
This is interesting. I was watching a documentary on the History channel today concerning the Union prisoner of war camp, camp Douglas? in Chicago I believe it was. As Confederate prisoners were marched in to the prison any black person in confederate uniform was shot on sight by Union soldiers. I thought that the Union side wanted to free the blacks. It was just sort of surprising to me.
“The truth is wasted on Southron supporters.”
when it comes to your version, yep you betcha.
Done.
Black Union soldiers tended to be shot by confederates rather than be allowed to surrender. Those who did were, by confederate law, returned to slavery.
The truth is the truth. Only the South has versions of the truth, which depend on which Southron myth you're clinging to at the time.
Huh?
Africans were first brought to the colonies by the Dutch (Jamestown, 1619).
They were sold as indentured servants.
Nobody forced Southerners to buy slaves or to make slavery the foundation of their economy.
You guys just won't let it go.
It wasn't about slavery then any more than its about slavery now.
Why, I'd bet my two matched grays that if we were to draw a line in the sand, say east to west along the Potomac, that we could both, South and north, raise large armies that would be willing to engage in bitter combat, just like our forefathers, for no more of a reason than we just don't particularly like each other. (Except this time we'd get West Virginia, Kentucky, part of Ohio, part of Indiana, part of Illinois and maybe some of Michigan.)
The biggest surprise is that the yankees have been able to cover up their unmitigated racism for so long.
the FACTS ARE that about the same percentage of northerners & southerners owned slaves = 5-6%.
face it, "x", you've been LIED TO & made a FOOL of.
anybody who believes (as you DO) that the WBTS was ONLY or even MOSTLY "about slavery" is a "useful idiot".
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
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.