Huge Confederate flag flying high over I-65

VERBENA (AP) — A huge Confederate battle flag flying over Interstate 65 north of Montgomery will become a permanent fixture, according to officials with the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The organization bought land on the side of the interstate near Verbena and put up the flag, which has been flying for several months above the tree lines from the top of a large pole, easily visible from the heavily traveled interstate.

Leonard Wilson, commander of the Alabama division of Sons of Confederate Veterans, said the flag will be dedicated in a ceremony at 5 p.m. on June 26.

The flag is located on a little more than half an acre of land just north of where Autauga County 68 crosses over the interstate, about six miles south of the Verbena exit.

"We put the flag up so people could see it," Wilson said. "We are showing off our heritage. The flag is part of our heritage."

Critics of Confederate flag displays say they are reminders of the slavery era and Alabama's racist past, and can damage Alabama's image when flown beside a busy interstate route to Gulf beaches.

You are aware there were those of us which tried very hard to counter the leftist vote? Millions of conservatives but regrettably not enough. Hopefully we shall do far better the next time.

I do.... but that wasn't my point. I was making the point that equating the party politics of the 1860's to that of today is ridiculous. Further, those who celebrate our southern heritage (condemned by the likes of some here like you, mac and others) are the very ones who kept Kerry out of the White House. As a whole, the south is far more conservative... and I would dare to say more loyal Americans than those in the northern states. They are not part of the "blame America first" crowd that seems to pervade nothern states like Massachutsetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont and others. Having said that, of course I know there are Conservatives there working hard, but the whole of the population is not what it is in the south.

When the words of the Constitution no longer mean what they clearly say, our freedom is in jeopardy. No thanks, mac.

No, when foreign or domestic enemies raise armies and attack our Federal installations then our freedom is in jeopardy. Debating the meaning of words doesn't change that reality.

I already knew you had little regard for the Tenth Amendment. I should have realized that other words in the Constitution probably also had little meaning to you.

The Tenth amendment contains no magic "Get out of the Union free" language, and is subject to limitations imposed on it by the rest of the Constitution. Something the confederates and their modern day apologists conveniently forget.

-btw If you feel so strongly about preserving Congress' War Powers it might not be to late to join the lawsuit against Bush and his illegal war. Here is a link to add your name to their petition. You can probably get on their mailing list as well... Legal Action Against Bush War Powers

In that sense, you are a true Lincoln man.

I'll stand with Lincoln RB, if you step up and stand with the list of leftwing Congressmen who sued Bush and Rumsfeld in Federal court to stop the war in Iraq using the exact same argument you're attempting to use right now.

Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill.; Jim McDermott, D-Wash.; Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.; Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas: Rustbucket D-???

How about it?

Webster's noble optimism was clouded when he choose the route of compromising with an existing evil in the land. Regretfully he sounds very similar to today's politicians on the Hill, as they too are confronted by an obvious evil in the land & the entire world, yet they continue wavering & waffling when the course of action remains ever so clear on the domestic front as well as the international front.

While I am more partial to Calhoun's view of the Union, than Webster's, I cannot let your suggestion that Webster ever "choose the route of compromising with an existing evil in the land," go unchallenged. Only an abolitionist fanatic can fail to appreciate the genuine statesmanship in the Webster speech.

Webster's carefully chosen words, in that truly great and principled speech, posted at my web site, Webster's Greatest Speech, bears not the slightest resemblance to anything either compromising with evil, or any thing remotely resembling the pathetic level of oratory and political discourse, encountered on either side of the aisle, or offered by any American political leader of the past decade. Just on intellectual content, you will not find its like in contemporary American political discourse.

As for evil? The Southern system was in my opinion truly mistaken--in the same sense and with results remarkably similar to the Welfare State, today. I certainly do not advocate it. But the Patriarchs of the Bible were slave owners, and they were not seen as doing evil in Western Theology, for 3,000 years. It is a bit presumptuous for you to be passing around that label, with reference to other people.

But, of course, it matters not in the slightest, what you and Garrison chose to define as evil. Your philosophic position may indeed be right. That is hardly the point. We have a Constitutional compact, which deliberately left moral decisions to the constituent members of that compact. You will read the Federal Constitution in vain, to find any grant to the Federal Government of the right to make moral judgments for the constituent parties. That was left to the States. On the other hand, there was specific authority--indeed an impicit duty based upon the explicit language--to both recognize and protect the right of slave owners to recover their slaves via what later came to be known as the Fugitive Slave Law.

Webster was not compromising with evil. His whole life was an affirmation of his belief in the Constitution, and his understanding of the duties it imposed upon Americans. Those duties did not include minding one another's business.

As Webster pointed out, the Abolitionists' activities, choked off the debate in the South--the one place where that debate was proper, under the Constitutional system--as to how to end slavery.

If you want to discuss evil, discuss the evil of men who take an oath to support the Constitution and then twist it for their own purposes. The Federal Government was not created as a vehicle for fanatics who wanted to impose their monolithic moral values on other people, who had other views. The difference is between a Federation, where we have reasoned debate between men like Webster and Calhoun, Jefferson, Madison and Adams, or the rigid doctrinaire totalitarian monstrosity of a Stalin or a Hitler.

I'll take Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Calhoun and Webster, any day!

William Flax

After a review of Vallandigham's truly disgraceful antics during America's only civil war

What war was that? Oh, you mean the War Between the States. I'm old enough to have been taught that it was not a civil war.

Why would Lincoln spare Vallandigham while he was tossing thousands of others in jail for expressing sympathy for the South? Could it be that Vallandigham did not do anything "wrong" other than point out the unconstitutionality of Lincoln's actions and orders by Lincoln's army commanders?

Here's a link to what transpired that caused his arrest by 150 troops (Link).

The Vallandigham speech was not alleged to have violated any law passed by Congress. Instead he was charged with violating General Order 38 issued by union General Burnside whose area of command included Ohio. Ohio was outside the area of military conflict. The Burnside order provided that "declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be allowed in this department" and that express or implied treason would be punished.

Burnside had sent soldiers in plain clothes to the Democratic rally where they took notes on Vallandigham’s speech. According to these witnesses Vallandigham said he did not counsel resistence to the military or civil law. Instead the people should throw king Lincoln from his throne at the next election. Contemporary press accounts say Valladigham was telling people they were required to obey the law and the draft.

In his speech Vallandigham said his right to speak came not from General Order 38 but from General Order No. 1-the Constitution. General Order 38 was an unconstitutional usurpation. He said people should seek redress at the polls.

Advocating throwing someone out of office by voting him out is illegal? Come on. This is not Russia, China, or Iran.

Others were more militant about their desire for freedom of speech. Here, for instance, is what Lambdin P. Milligan said:

... we will maintain, peaceably if we can, but forcibly if we must, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of the person from arbitrary and unlawful arrest, and the freedom of the ballot box, from the aggression and violence of every person and authority whatsoever.

... we will resist by force any attempt to abridge the elective franchise, whether by introduction of illegal votes, under military authority, or by the attempt by Federal Officers to intimidate the citizen by threats of oppression.

After a review of Vallandigham's truly disgraceful antics during America's only civil war, I believe if alive today he would be joined his fellow Democrats in choosing the road of the failed policies of appeasing our worst enemies.

I had not seen this comment of yours, when I replied to your previous comment to me.

Vallandigham's "antics," were to engage in statesmanlike, reasoned debate on the issues--including the Constitutional issues, involved in the common oath that all the political leaders had taken.

As for the Democrats in 1860 and now?!! Surely you jest. The parties have almost completely changed positions. The Clinton Democrat is far closer to the Abolitionist Republican of the Thad Stevens variety than to any type of Democrat in 1860. There were four seminal events that led to a major political realignment. Are you totally unaware of them?

1. The Populists captured the Democratic Party, at least temporarily in 1896, following the Panic of 1893, during the first year of Grover Cleveland's Second Term. This drove many traditional Democrats--Cleveland supporters, who believed in sound money--to vote for McKinley, a Conservative Republican.

2. The New Deal, under FDR, moved the Northern Democratic Party, at least, dramatically to the Left, driving many lifelong Democrats to begin a gradual drift into the Republican Party.

3. When Barry Goldwater and his supporters captured the Republican Party in 1964, Strom Thurmond, led a strong movement of Conservative Southern Democrats into the Republican Party.

4. What Thurmond had started in 1964 was largely completed when Ronald Reagan succeeded in winning the Presidency with Goldwater principles.

It is this realignment that has given the Republican Party every victory it has achieved at the Federal level, since 1980. Meanwhile, the Abolitionists--the modern ones, who want also to use the Federal Government to impose moral uniformity over the entire land--have become Democrats.

The Abolitionists used to rant about a "Higher Law than the Constitution," and quoted language from the Declaration of Independence, out of context. The modern Democrats rant about "Civil Rights" and "Social Justice," and claim the Consitution is subject to change at the whim of the moment--i.e., that it is not a binding contract between the constituent States.

You need to pay better attention to what people believe in, rather than the Party labels of the moment.

What limitations are those, mac?

If you feel so strongly about preserving Congress' War Powers it might not be to late to join the lawsuit against Bush and his illegal war. Here is a link to add your name to their petition.

You are the one who seems to be calling Bush's action illegal. Here is the joint resolution of Congress authorizing Bush to use military force in Iraq: Link. Congress spoke, then Bush could act.

By the way, it is rustbucket, R-TX. I was a delegate to the last Republican state convention in my state. Were you a delegate to your state's Republican convention?

Both Democrat Lee and Democrat Vallandigham questioned their respective President's ability to declare war, claiming it was an authority reserved to Congress by the Constitution.

Here is what Lincoln had to say in 1848 about presidential ability to declare war (Link):

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

I just did some research on Butler. Did you know that in August, 1861, he treated slaves in his VA jurisdiction as "contraband"?

And the context of that declaration was when a Virginia slaveowner showed up at the Butler's camp demanding the return of three runaways. Butler refused to return them to the man, declaring them "contraband of war." The term "contraband" became the common term for runaway slaves who had sought the protection of the Union army. Butler's action made him very popular with the Radical Republicans and Abolitionists.

Butler was also one of the first Union officers to raise and arm black troops, an action that led Jefferson Davis to issue a proclamation in which he calls for the execution of Butler, should he be captured: "And finally the African slaves have not only been excited to insurrection by every license and encouragement but numbers of them have actually been armed for a servile war—a war in its nature far exceeding in horrors the most merciless atrocities of the savages."

http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/pow.htm

Here is the joint resolution of Congress authorizing Bush to use military force in Iraq: Link.

..and here is a Congressional Declaration of War Link

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same....

Notice the difference?

Congress spoke, then Bush could act.

Hmm, is that what the plain language of Article I Section 8 says, RB?

As you stated earlier, "When the words of the Constitution no longer mean what they clearly say, our freedom is in jeopardy" .

Have you now changed your position?

Hmm, is that what the plain language of Article I Section 8 says, RB?

Cogress authorized the use of military force in Iraq. President Bush then used it. The separation of powers is intact and was respected.

King Lincoln usurped the powers of Congress and the Legislature in all sorts of ways. Bush did only what Congress authorized him to do.

What part of

"AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

don't you understand?

Sounds like you want to join in that lawsuit against Bush. Hint: your Democrat plaintiff buddies lost that case.

"Why would Lincoln spare Vallandigham while he was tossing thousands of others in jail for expressing sympathy for the South?

Lincoln did not want to create an incarcerated martyr out of someone who welded some political power within the Democrat opposition. Maybe he should have thrown him in the clink which would have sent a clear message to other traitors out there.

"According to these witnesses Vallandigham said he did not counsel resistence to the military or civil law. Instead the people should throw king Lincoln from his throne at the next election."

Lincoln, although in no way not perfect, was elected by the American voting public. He was not a 'king', no matter how much Vallandigham and his Democrats in the North & the slave owning South wish to create that false image. In retrospect changing horses in the middle of the Civil War would not have been wise. Vallandigham was placing his own personal political motives over the betterment of the nation as a whole - an unconditional surrender of the Confederate insurrectionists and onward to rebuilding the nation.

"The Vallandigham speech was not alleged to have violated any law passed by Congress. Instead he was charged with violating General Order 38 issued by union General Burnside whose area of command included Ohio. Ohio was outside the area of military conflict. The Burnside order provided that "declaring sympathy for the enemy will not be allowed in this department" and that express or implied treason would be punished."

Being that the nation was engaged in repressing a full scale rebellion in the Southern states, General Burnsides order was more than reasonable.

"General Order 38 was an unconstitutional usurpation."

Oh horse feathers! The pinkos & commies scream about the implementation of Homeland Security regulations in the very same fashion today. All mouth when it comes to their bloody agenda, while ignoring the very real threat out there by madmen.

"Advocating throwing someone out of office by voting him out is illegal? Come on. This is not Russia, China, or Iran."

The United States of America was had been ripped into two portions in a horrid civil war, we, the nation were at war against a domestic enemy. Same deal today if people would wake up in terms of the Moooslems.

Lambdin P. Milligan, yet another Southern sympathizing Copperheaded, terrorist provoking traitor , who was indeed arrested just like the sellout Vallandigham.

Southern sympathizer Lambdin P. Milligan was a Copperhead, a northern political faction that sought peace at any price. This cartoon portrays Copperheads as threatening the Union ~ (Library of Congress)

'Lambdin P. Milligan: was a leader in the Knights of the Golden Circle. The organization believed in 'states rights' and was very sympathetic to the south during the Civil War. After they failed to gain much support in elections, they decided to resort to armed uprisings with Milligan chosen to lead the one in northeastern Indiana. On October 4th, 1864 he was arrested and tried for treason. After trial before a military commission in Indianapolis, he was convicted and sentenced to be hanged.' (and should have been, if not, life in a federal prison.)

'At liberty again, Milligan sued the military for false imprisonment, and a jury awarded him damages—five dollars!'

'On the 5th day of October, 1864, while at home, he was arrested by order of General Alvin P. Hovey, commanding the military district of Indiana; and has ever since been kept in close confinement.'

During "the late wicked Rebellion," Lincoln had authorized such military tribunals very similar to today's due to the nature of the threats our nation was & is confronting.

"You need to pay better attention to what people believe in, rather than the Party labels of the moment."

"Meanwhile, the Abolitionists--the modern ones...

Slavery and the era of Jim Crow laws of the South are over. I do not understand you trying to invent 'Abolitionists' in 2005? The leftwing elite in this country have nothing to do with the Abolitionist Movement of the pre-Civil War years.

I believe you need to pay better attention, since today's rabid 'liberals' are not trying to free anyone, but the sneaky reverse, enslave all of us to their deformed image of the America they continually scheme to bring about. A leftist totalitarian dictatorship in which their Queen, Hillary, would rule with an iron hand.

...."Strom Thurmond, led a strong movement of Conservative Southern Democrats into the Republican Party."

What was the 'real' reason? In 1964, Thurmond switched his party affiliation, becoming a 'Republican' in protest of the Democrats' support and President Johnson's shepherding of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"What Thurmond had started in 1964 was largely completed when Ronald Reagan succeeded in winning the Presidency with Goldwater principles.

Comparing the 1964 Strom Thurmond, at that time a bitter, hate filled, arch Dixiecrat, racial segregationist - with Ronald Reagan is totally reprehensible, and you should be ashamed.

In his segregationist past Strom Thurmond, who thought some Americans were inferior, had a baby with someone he claimed should not even have the right to vote.

In fairness to Senator Thurmond sometime in the 1970's he apparently had a change of heart regarding his former 'issues', and had one of the best conservative voting records.

Are you in favor of jailing opposing politicians who recommend obeying the law, obeying the draft, but voting their opponent out of office at the next election? In other words, support mein leader or I'll throw you in the clink?

During "the late wicked Rebellion," Lincoln had authorized such military tribunals very similar to today's due to the nature of the threats our nation was & is confronting.

Having military tribunals in an area where the civil courts were functioning and withholding constitutional rights from a prisoner in such an area was not cricket according to the Supreme Court. Certainly you remember the 9-0 Supreme Court vote in ex parte Milligan that set Milligan free? Lincoln had overstepped his bounds. From ex parte Milligan:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.

The items you outlined were not the case with Milligan, nor Vallandigham and their mobs of pro-Southern Democrat supporters.

The uncertain & dangerous Civil War years were like none every experienced since the American Revolution & The War of 1812. Traitors in the North which were supporting the an enemy determined to dismantle the United States and with the South's invasion of the North, overthrown the US government and establish a Confederate dictatorship. All turncoats aiding the enemy's cause had to be swiftly dealt with.

Milligan was one of the worst examples of a snake instigating domestic terrorism behind the lines. The Confederates loved Copperheads like him.

Maybe it would have been better for Milligan to be tried in a civil court & convicted, in retrospect, that being does in no way diminish his treasonous undertakings.

More up to date, there's is not a real conservative out there who does not fully believe the Clinton's, Reno & others during those two shameful 'Red House' terms, should have been thrown in the clink for a variety of their past crimes against this country.

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.