Huge Confederate flag flying high over I-65

decaturdaily. ^ | 13-June-2005

[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.

[steve-b]

Others have pursued Truth, and sought to analyze what was true and what flowed from Truth and the Laws of Nature.

Precisely. The pursuit of Truth has taught us that slavery is evil, notwithstanding that it was believed to be acceptable for thousands of years, just as it has taught us that the earth is round, notwithstanding that it was believed to be flat for thousands of years.

We do not need you telling us that we are evil.

On the contrary; that is precisely what you need. You show no sign of correcting your moral errors on your own without the benefit of outside judgment.

[4CJ]

It must be sad to be that insane and hate-filled. No one has advocated a return to slavery, yet your modus operandi is to continually paint any in disagreement with your beliefs as nothing more than a beast beneath contempt advocating such.

The issue at hand is the legality of submission by military force to remain in the union. You can play the race card all you want - just as Kwesi Mfume, Andrew Young and others do, but every honest, intelligent American knows the war was not to free anyone - it was to force the seceded states to remain subservient to the union. If (<---- that's a big if) the South simply desired to continue slavery, and no other factors were involved, all they had to do to continue slavery was to REMAIN in the Union. After all, yankees had sold slaves for decades, sailed to Africa to purchase them, and it was the Union flag that flew over their ships - not the Confederate.

You habitually condemn anyone who utters that faintest admiration for their Confederate ancestors. To that I simply remind you that God commands us (5th Commandment) to honour our mother and father (and them theirs etc). In Matthew 15:4 Jesus states, 'God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.' So in deciding whom to follow - some apparent two-bit, one-track psychopath, or God - then my choice is easy. Me and mine shall serve the Lord.

Ronald Reagan didn't comdemn Southerners, in fact he voiced his admiration for Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Reagan's views of liberty and freedom, his passion and desire for government, were for a return to LIMITED government, that advocated by the same Southerers that you seem to despise. So here we are again, in deciding whom I trust - the same apparent two-bit, one-track psychopath, or Reagan - then my choice is easy. As is the choice of any God fearing, red-blooded, patriotic American - Reagan will continue to be loved and admired for his views of limited government.

You're welcome to your viewpoint, it really doesn't matter to me that yours are shared in part by Jessee Jackson or Al Sharpton - that's your choice. I will follow that of John F. Harris - a black legislator from Mississippi:

When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed. And they made no requests for monuments. But they died and their virtues should be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I too wore the Grey. The same color my master wore. We stayed four long years and if that war had gone on until now, I would have been there yet. I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions.

You might despise them, but you POST like a member of the Taliban - only your viewpoint is acceptable, and anyone disagreeing should be stoned.

[mac_truck]

Posting letters from Vallandigham's Copperhead associates protesting his being drop kicked out of the country is not a valid measure of whether the people of that time viewed opposition to the Mexican War the same as opposition to the Civil War. But it does say something about your own historical myopia.

Lincoln had his cockamamie theory that the Union preceded the states and that the states were not sovereign.

Well, thats your opinion. Lincoln was well versed in what the Founders wrote and said about the Union, as well as predecessors like Andrew Johnson. Lincoln also did a pretty good job of preserving the Union from ruin, for which I am thankful.

- 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.

Try putting Vallandigham's July 15th 1861 criticisms of Lincoln into context.

-He made those comments a week before Congress overwhelming gave Lincoln it's approval to wage war against the Confederates.

-He made those comments after weeks and months of rebel attacks against Federal military installations, lootings of Federal armories, etc.

-In fact Copperhead Clem made those comments at the same time the Confederates were gathering their own army across the river from Washington DC, and Gov. Pickens was writing letters to Jeff Davis promising troops to take over the Capital.

In this context Vallandigham's comments against the lawful actions of the Commander and Chief of the United States to defend the nation from it's domestic enemies should be viewed as the pathetic attempts at subversion they were.

Not unlike Barbara Lee's comments in Dec. 2001 before Congress overwhelming gave Pres. Bush it's approval to fight Al Queda, I might add.

I've never called him a Commie.

Well you made a joke about him being a leftist, same difference.

[4CJ]

'Jefferson Davis is a hero of mine.' - Ronald W. Reagan, 21 Sep 1980.

[M. Espinola]

"The issue at hand is the legality of submission by military force to remain in the union."

Anyone forcing you to remain in the 'Union'? Depart when you like.

[Heyworth]

Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln.--Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural

[M. Espinola]

"And their existence does not in and of itself discredit the concept of civil rights, any more than the existence of slavery apologists on FR discredits conservative/libertarian political concepts.

Points very well taken. Now if we could only get the slavery apologists to fully remove their masks.

[Ohioan]

You just do not have a clue do you? "Civil Rights" are an at least partially contradictory concept to the "Unalienable Rights" concept of the Founding Fathers. Civil Rights are those created by Government. The particular "Civil Rights Movement," which you appear to endorse--the movement today represented by Jesse Jackson, as the ideological heir to Martin Luther King--is based upon the pursuit of Governmental interference with other people's rights.

You cannot make it an offense to not hire someone, on a State decreed criteria, without stripping away some of the property rights of an employer. You cannot make it a right to go to school with someone else, against that someone else's wish, without stripping away the right of free association by someone else.

I am not calling anyone who was not a Communist, a Communist. Actually, what I stated was that the movement was started by Socialists, later joined by Communists. W.E.B. Dubois, was not a Communist until long after he was the only non-White among the White Socialist founders of the NAACP. But history is history, and that movement was intended from the start to promote confrontation, not amity and peace, between the races. (See Creating Hate In America Today.)

William Flax

[Ohioan]

Your endless ex cathedra rants will not convince anyone who is not also a fanatic. You offer no reasoned argument, only endless assertions of your bottom line opinions.

I would not bother to respond, except that you are a convenient foil to demonstrate the danger of fanaticism. Your mindset has led to very ugly results throughout history. In order to demonstrate the dangers of same, I even have a series of articles on the subject of fanaticism at the Web Site. For example: Studies In Fanaticism.

We also deal with the compulsion for uniformity in thought: Compulsion For Uniformity.

Do I think any of such would convince you of anything? No, you are the true, "True Believer." But others surf by. I hope that your fanaticism will wake some of them up, to what is wrong with certain types of non-thinking.

[Ohioan]

Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln.--Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural

I do not recall the context of that remark. But I am not sure what your point is. Certainly one can respect and admire both Jefferson Davis and Lincoln. Both men showed considerable character, just as each made mistakes. That is not tantamount to endorsing any particular thing that either did during the period 1861-1865.

The things which many of us, who disagree with the wisdom of the War of 1861-1865, still admire Lincoln for, was his demonstration of how a properly motivated lad may teach himself. Lincoln's life was a total refutal of the idea that you have to spend enormous sums of money to educate the youth.

Another admirable thing about Lincoln was the sentiment expressed in his Second Inaugural Address: "With Malice Towards None; With Charity Towards All." Had he lived, there would have been no nightmare of Reconstruction; no Fourteenth Amendment.

William Flax

[M. Espinola]

"I am not calling anyone who was not a Communist, a Communist."

Neither am I. As I stated previously, agents of the American Communist Party owing their sole, treasonous allegiance to Moscow, did regrettably attach themselves to the American civil rights movement, a legitimate movement trying to change South's enforced anti-Black American laws.

The Communists sought out, and still do, any possible inroad to corrupt & distort very real concerns effecting segments of American society in domestic & foreign affairs. The Communists & their fellow travelers have only one goal, control, absolute control. The communists also wormed there way into the labour movement, but were not always successful in underhanded subversion.

Communists remain out there controlling the abortion death mills, and also the leadership of those which would rather make deals with America's enemies, in relation to unconditionally defeating our enemies.

The communists would not have be able to infiltrate the various groups seeking to end the South's racial policy of enforced segregation of fellow Americans simply because of skin tone, if the problem did not exist in the first place.

This nation fought and defeated both Imperial Japan & Nazi Germany for exactly the same kind of racial superiority trash which resulted in the extermination of countless millions all over the Asian & European fronts simply because they did not fit into the Axis pure population plans.

Some returning American servicemen unfortunately confronted the very same kind of state ordered racial discrimination continuing in the South, after killing Nazis & Japs for the very same thing.

Care to comment?

"The particular "Civil Rights Movement," which you appear to endorse--..--is based upon the pursuit of Governmental interference with other people's rights."

After the war & during the 1950's through the mid-1960's are you referring to the rights of the Klan controlled Southern state governments along with police forces, such as the ones in the link below?

History will judge each of us by our actions, not our words.

The link's wording was from your link concerning 'hate' in America.

"But history is history, and that movement was intended from the start to promote confrontation, not amity and peace, between the races."

You mean like the one leading the others below?

'Bull' Connor unleashed attack dogs & ordered the Birmingham Fire Dept. to turn high powered water hoses on the Black people who were marching for their right to vote as Americans citizens.

I suppose you believe these actions were also correct?

In retrospect are you in accord with the 'Plessy v. Ferguson' decision, coupled with the ruling handed down in the Dread Scott case prior to the Civil War years?

In 1954 the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education branded the "separate but equal" principle a fallacy, thereby undermining the legal foundation of the Jim Crow South. Ten years later the long repressive era of Jim Crow was ended.

Is your opinion the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education was wrong or right?

In relation to the Thirteenth Amendment which abolished slavery, the Fourteenth provided citizenship, and the Fifteenth guaranteed the right to vote.

In addition to you stating your opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment (not allowing the right of Black Americans to be American citizens) are you also opposed to the Thirteenth & Fifteenth Amendment and if so why?

1958 - Resolution against the Fourteenth Amendment. Lee-Jackson Camp, Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Are you in agreement with the The Declaration of Independence wording, "all men are created equal"?

[Heyworth]

Lyrics from an old Randy Newman song.

Funny coincidence. I was in the Salvation Army store down the block from my office at lunch today and scored the Randy Newman 4 disk box set for $3.50. I was just listening to that song.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Yep. And THESE are known to rile up a few people, too!:

[AmericanInTokyo]

Indeed. Yes. Both American. One of The Republic, and one not of the The Republic.

[rustbucket]

Posting letters from Vallandigham's Copperhead associates protesting his being drop kicked out of the country is not a valid measure of whether the people of that time viewed opposition to the Mexican War the same as opposition to the Civil War. But it does say something about your own historical myopia.

I see well enough, thanks. Let’s look at some of the opposition to the Mexican War. Here's Senator Corwin of Ohio:

Let us abandon all idea of acquiring further territory and by consequence cease at once to prosecute this war [Mexican War]. Let us call home our armies, and bring them at once within our own acknowledged limits.

Here's a resolution Abraham Lincoln voted for, in fact he could have been considered to have cast the deciding vote [US House of Representatives, Jan 3, 1848]:

Mr. Ashmun moved to amend the said proposed instructions, by adding at the end of the same the following: "in a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States."

And the question was put, Will the House agree to the amendment offered by Mr. Ashmun,

And decided in the affirmative,

Yeas ... 82
Nays ... 81

The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the members present, Those who voted in the affirmative [include], … Abraham Lincoln …

Calhoun and Webster [Source: The War with Mexico Reviewed, by Abiel Abbot Livermore, 1850]:

… the appropriation of moneys thus collected to whatever uses the Executive thought best, and the appointment under such a scheme of a multitude of custom-house officers were measures declared both by Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Webster, to be invasions of the laws and constitution of the United States. The dangerous march of Executive Power was further manifested by the creation of civil governments, the appointing of the various officers, magistrates, and judges, necessary to carry them on, and the allotment of their duties and salaries, without any reference to the authority of Congress, or any appeal to its judgment, any more than if that body had been non-existent.

Senator Baldwin of Connecticut, March 15, 1848

... the language of the Secretary of War when ordering General Taylor to advance on the Rio Grande, while Congress was in session, and peace was subsisting between the United States and Mexico -- a measure of which it is apparent he contemplated at the time aggressive war as the probable result [sounds like Lincoln sending the ships to Sumter].

... Would Congress at that time have declared this war for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction from the Mexican Republic of the claims of our citizens? No one believes it.

There was strong opposition to Lincoln's war, just as there had been strong opposition to the Mexican War.

Lincoln was well versed in what the Founders wrote and said about the Union, as well as predecessors like Andrew Johnson.

Andrew Johnson!? LOL Now there was a constitutional scholar. < / sarc> Johnson was hung in effigy by his own constituents. No doubt you probably meant to say Andrew Jackson.

I can cite many references by the Founders where they considered the states to be sovereign. Lincoln ignored them because if states were sovereign, they could secede.

Try putting Vallandigham's July 15th 1861 criticisms of Lincoln into context. -He made those comments a week before Congress overwhelming gave Lincoln it's approval to wage war against the Confederates.

As the Supreme Court later said, the Constitution applies equally in times of peace and times of war. Put Lincoln's actions in that context.

If Lincoln had the power to suspend habeas corpus in 1861, then why did Congress feel they had to authorize him to suspend it for the remainder of the war two years later?

Congress didn't have the power to excuse Lincoln's violations of various other parts of the Constitution or violations after the fact. As Taney said in ex parte Merryman:

The constitution provides, as I have before said, that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' It declares that 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.

These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms.

Banish away, mac.

[TexConfederate1861]

No...two DIFFERENT REPUBLICS. Same Country!

[steve-b]

But others surf by.

That is precisely why I (and many others, judging from this thread) take seriously the duty to prevent you from giving the impression that slavery apologism is tolerated in conservative circles.

[steve-b]

that movement was intended from the start to promote confrontation

Yeah, and the War on Terror is the reason Islamists are angry at us.

Sheesh.