It's nosh time - later & cheers!
Posted on 06/13/2005 4:41:07 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
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.
It's nosh time - later & cheers!
Surely you're not suggesting that Congress failed to give Lincoln authorization to put down the Southern rebellion, are you? Better check your Congressional Globe for the first session of the 37th Congress, July 22, 1861.
Sounds like you want to join in that lawsuit against Bush. Hint: your Democrat plaintiff buddies lost that case.
The plaintiffs used a "plain language" argument citing Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, just as you were attempting to do with Lincoln. Explain the difference.
Hint: your Democrat plaintiff buddies lost that case.
Lol! If you really stood behind the principles you espoused earlier you would have joined them by filing an amicus brief stating:
"When the words of the Constitution no longer mean what they clearly say, our freedom is in jeopardy"
It sounds to me like you insist on the "plain language" of the Constitution only when it suits your endevour. Good luck with that.
[You]: The items you outlined were not the case with Milligan, nor Vallandigham ...
Perhaps not for Milligan. However, here is an excerpt from the testimony of a prosecution witness against Vallandigham at Vallandigham's military trial that mentions them:
He [Vallandigham] spoke in regard to the rebuke of the Administration at the last fall election; that no more volunteers could be had; that the Administration had to resort to the French conscription law; that he would not counsel resistance to military or civil law; ... he claimed the right to discuss and criticize the actions of civil and military men in power. He advised at the close of his speech to come up together at the ballot box and hurl the tyrant from his throne.
If it was appropriate to banish Vallandigham from the United States for his words, then Abraham Lincoln should have been banished for his opposition to the Mexican War. And not only Lincoln, but many others of his political persuasion during that time would have "qualified" for banishment.
Besides, under what statute did the President have the power to banish anyone? It is not part of US law as far as I know. Such distinctions apparently were lost upon Lincoln.
ROTFL! That the biggest pantsload I've read on FR. The South was a bastion for the Democrats from the 1930s to the 1960s. By 1956 only the South was still voting Democrat!!
Mac, you've been all over the map today.
I pointed out where Vallandigham criticized the President for violating the Constitution. You did not reply to his criticisms, so I take it that you must agree with them or can't defend Lincoln's actions.
You then tried to link Barbara Lee with Vallandigham for their common insistence that the Constitution be followed with respect to declaring war. I pointed out that even Lincoln had advocated that position earlier in his career. Is he a rabid leftist too? Oh, wait ...
You then tried to link me with rabid leftists who brought suit against George W. for the war in Iraq. I pointed out where the separation of powers was still intact and that Congress authorized Bush to use whatever force was necessary in Iraq.
Now I point out that Lincoln usurped the powers of Congress and the Legislature (pardon me, I meant to say 'and the Judiciary') in various ways. Again you don't address the various ways that Lincoln usurped their power but return to the question of war authorization that happened after Lincoln did all these unconstitutional things.
Lincoln was able to do all those unconstitutional things that Vallandigham mentioned because he had no Congress in session to stop him. In late March 1861 he told the Senate that he had nothing further to tell them, so they adjourned. Then the next day, Lincoln decided to resupply Fort Sumter, in essence starting the war. That wasn't important enough to retain the Senate or convene the entire Congress? Apparently not to someone bound and determined to start a war.
Lincoln did not convene Congress in a timely fashion after Sumter. Jefferson Davis convened his Congress in about two weeks time. Lincoln waited until July as I remember. That gave him time to do all the various unconstitutional things listed by Vallandigham, about which you've basically not replied.
The plaintiffs used a "plain language" argument citing Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, just as you were attempting to do with Lincoln. Explain the difference.
To repeat, what part of "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." do you not understand? (Apparently all of it.)
There, I've answered my own question. As the Lincoln quote I cited above said, " ... 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." Well put by the once and future king.
Vallandigham was in the political opposition to that of Lincoln. The party of Vallandigham was the very same party that began the Civil War in South Carolina.
It's really hitting below the belt being the PR man for Jefferson Davis & the Confederates making remarks like that, just so the his particular party could regain control on the Hill? Appalling and disgusting actions.
"Besides, under what statute did the President have the power to banish anyone?
Maybe he did not and should have allowed Vallandigham to serve his term in a the Hub's federal prison. It's one way or the other. Vallandigham should have been grateful to Lincoln for offering a form of clemency for his pro-Confederate meddling and political opportunism. Somehow the traitor is being portrayed as a 'victim'(?)
Would the likes of Milligan & Vallandigham been happy if Lee's rebel army had gained a victory at Gettysburg and then turned their rage on Washington D.C., Philly and then march to New York & beyond. What if the slave supporting insurrectionist leaders had been able to march all the way to Boston? There would have been mass slaughter, being that Boston was a leading center for the abolition of the South economic system of slavery.
All this talk concerning Lincoln somehow being a dictating tyrant is nonsense in relation to Slave Empire having won the Civil War, in seizing control of the North's leading industrial base anyone who supported crushing the Confederate rebellion would have been murdered. That would have been an unthinkable & very 'real' dictatorship.
LOLOL! It looks like an entire truck load of these are required!
The 1948 map remains were the neo-confederate crowd is glued!
They talk about the Northeast - check out 1952 & 1956 maps. The election maps tell the 'real' truth. Great job!
Perhaps you would be interested in another quote from the trial testimony pertinent to your comment. Apparently Vallandigham conducted the interegation of prosecution witnesses about the content of speech that got Vallandigham arrested. The prosecution witnesses replied as though they were talking about Vallandigham in the third person.
Question. Did I not expressly refer to myself in that connection and say that I had refused and always would refuse to agree to a separation of the States -- in other words to peace on terms of disunion?
Answer. He stated something to that effect. He stated that he wished to have a voice in the manner in which the Union was to be reconstructed, and that he wished also our Southern brethren to have a voice.
Question. Referring to the Richmond Enquirer article, did I not say that it, Jefferson Davis' organ, had called upon Dictator Lincoln to lock up Mr. Jox?/Cox?, Senator Richardson and myself in one of his military prisons because of our doing so much against Southern recognition and independence?
Answer. Yes; substantially he did say so.
At the end of the trial Vallandigham made a statement of which this is an excerpt:
... the alleged "offense" is not known to the Constitution of the United States nor to any law thereof. It is words spoken to the people of Ohio in an open and public political meeting lawfully and peaceably assembled under the Constitution and upon full notice. It is words of criticism of the public policy of the public servants of the people by which policy it was alleged that the welfare of the country was not promoted. It was an appeal to the people to change that policy, not by force but by free elections and the ballot-box. It is not pretended that I counseled disobedience to the Constitution or resistance to laws and lawful authority. I never have.
This is Free Republic, not Make-Excuses-For-Slavers Republic.
Are you dishonest or do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Slave owners and segragationists had FALSE and IMMORAL pseudo-values, not none at all -- their moral stature would have been immensely elevated had they gone from the former state to the latter.
The very definition of Moral Relativism.
The fact that it took time to recognize their wickedness does not make them any less wicked.
A few cuts-and-pastes could turn Webster's speech into a modern peace-leftist polemic about how the War on Terror is impeding the homegrown progress of Islamic societies toward civilized moderation.
Some types of award enhance one's credibility.
The Darwin Award isn't one of them.
Puh-leeze. It is either dishonest or stupid of you to assert that the "social equality" in Ditto's post ("I wouldn't condemn Stephens for "racism" for not accepting social equality we now expect, as the neo-confederates hypocritically condemn Lincoln.") refers to anything other than rejection of race as a basis for prejudgment.
No, I put his criticism into a contemporary perspective by pointing out the modern day Vallandighams in the Democrat party who used the same Constitutional arguments against Bush when he similarly used Presidential power to defend this country from its enemies.
I pointed out that even Lincoln had advocated that position earlier in his career. Is he a rabid leftist too?
The Mexican War and the Civil War are too dissimilar to make such a comparison accurately. Lincoln's view of the Union was influenced by the Founders and men like Andrew Jackson. He inherited a Presidency that was at the vortex of a Constitutional crisis brought about by illegal secessionist activities of the South, and the failure by Pres. Buchanan to live up to his Constitutional oath of office. Lincoln shrewdly used his Presidential power[s] to preserve the Union and bring the secessionists under heel, despite the worst efforts of traitors like Vallandigham and his subversive brethren. In so doing he helped define the modern Presidency.
That he is alternately called a King or Tyrant or Commie by you and others today doesn't change anything.
I pointed out where the separation of powers was still intact and that Congress authorized Bush to use whatever force was necessary in Iraq.
And I pointed out that Lincoln had authorization from Congress to go to war, he received it just as the first great battle of the southern rebellion was being fought a short distance from the capital.
Mac, you've been all over the map today.
Only because I've been chasing you down RB, which is somewhat akin to trying to catch a greased pig...
So you say. However, people of that time were making that comparison. I trust they knew the issues better than you. See, for example: Link 1 and Link 2.
Lincoln's view of the Union was influenced by Founders? Give me a break. Lincoln had his cockamamie theory that the Union preceded the states and that the states were not sovereign. That is not how the Founders saw it.
No, I put his criticism into a contemporary perspective by pointing out the modern day Vallandighams in the Democrat party who used the same Constitutional arguments against Bush when he similarly used Presidential power to defend this country from its enemies.
You are still avoiding the question, I see.
- Since when did Bush increase the Army and Navy without authorization from Congress? Lincoln did.- Since when did Bush blockade US ports without authorization from Congress? Lincoln did.
- Since when did Bush draw money appropriated for one purpose and apply it to another without authorization from Congress? Lincoln did.
That he is alternately called a King or Tyrant or Commie by you and others today doesn't change anything.
I've never called him a Commie. By his own actions in assuming the powers of the legislative and judicial branches he fits the definition of a king. When all those powers are assumed by one person Madison (if memory serves) said that it was the definition of tyranny.
my guess is ZILCH, as you seem to be all TALK. (and most of your "talk" is DUMB.)
frankly, i can't imagine that you did MUCH, if anything.
if i were the County Chair in your county, i'd "hide you under a rock", lest you came out with another STUPID, arrogantly ignorant,RACIST comment like your deleted post #645. and make the party look DUMB.
free dixie,sw
As for the connection between the Abolitionists and the Modern "Liberals." I suggest you read a bit further on the subject. The Abolitionist movement, the Prohibition movement, and the Feminist movements were all launched by the same groups in the 1830s and 1840s. They were not just about abolishing slavery. They wanted to dictate all sorts of social values to other people.
As for the "Civil Rights" movement? It was and is a Leftist movement, premised upon socialist assumptions--launched by known Socialists, later joined by Communists, as well as a lot of very naive "Liberals." It is epitomized by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, its most prominant contemporary spokesman.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
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.