Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Virginia County secretly removes Confederate flag from official seal
The Daily Press, Hampton Roads, VA ^ | March 2, 2006 | Associated Press

Posted on 03/03/2006 11:37:56 AM PST by Rebeleye

The removal of the Confederate flag from Amherst County's official seal has upset Southern heritage groups, who contend residents weren't told of the change. County officials acknowledge the image was quietly removed in August 2004 to avoid an uproar.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: amherst; battleflag; confederate; confederateflag; crackpots; crossofstandrew; dixie; goodthingtoo; neoconfederate; nutty; politicalcorrectness; purge; rag; scv; standrewscross; virgina; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 1,321-1,331 next last
To: Non-Sequitur; brazzaville
The purpose of the fleet was made clear in a message delivered to Governor Pickens long before the arrival of the ships. The message was delivered by a messenger from Lincoln and was quite clear, "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort."

By the time Lincoln had sent that message, he had already ordered the reinforcement of Sumter.

Welles had already said that it couldn't be done. Anderson had already rejected federal resupply. The entire cabinet rejected the idea as an outright act of open war.

Admiral Lincoln, however, with the trusty aid Gustavus Fox, devised and secretly carried out a plan, with explicit orders to withold the details from the department of the navy, by which the ships were commandeered, and loaded by soldiers from the army. He then redirected Powhatan in an effort to sabotage his own plan.

The only thing that's left to explain is why you continue to post dishonestly when you've seen all of this before.

301 posted on 03/11/2006 4:52:28 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
YEP. the KNOWING LIES of the DAMNyankee leftist REVISIONISTS go on & on.

FACTS are secondary to their quest to make the lincoln administration's war of IMPERIALIST aggression, against the new dixie republic, appear to be DECENT and/or NECESSARY.

unfortunately for them there is not enough soap & water in the universe to wash the INNOCENT blood of HUNDREDS of thousands of people from their hands.

free dixie,sw

302 posted on 03/11/2006 7:43:12 AM PST by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
I often wonder how much better things would have turned out if President Lincoln had lived to oversee reconstruction and the reintegration of the South into the Union.

Lincoln started The War of Northern Aggression, I am sure his reconstruction would have been unjust as well.

303 posted on 03/11/2006 7:57:48 AM PST by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeUnction
WELL SAID!

free dixie,sw

304 posted on 03/11/2006 8:05:46 AM PST by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
This means that states were NOT fully sovereign.

'But we have rights which the federal government must not invade - rights superior to its power, on which our sovereignty depends; and we do mean to assert these rights against all tyrannical assuptions of authority.'
Salmon P. Chase, 19 Aug 1854

305 posted on 03/11/2006 9:33:51 AM PST by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ; All
YEP!

may i also point out that the STATES created the federal government. NOT the other way around.

the STATES are FREE to modify, separate from,add states to (and, if necessary, ABOLISH!) the union at ANY time that the STATES/citizens choose to do so.

the union is NOT perpetual, despite the protestations of the LEFT!

to quote Thomas Jefferson (as i frequently do), "When the people fear the government there is TYRANNY;when the government fears the people there is LIBERTY!"

free dixie,sw

306 posted on 03/11/2006 11:55:32 AM PST by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Gianni

Well in his day conservative was what we call classical liberal and Hamilton meets all those qualifications. You are correct though in the implication that this word as we use it has much to do with the concepts in use at the time.

He was not an authoritarian, was a believer in a government capable of guiding the Nation through the wars and designs against Freedom which surrounded it, was a believer in capitalistic developement, Was a total patriot and often put his life on the line for his country. Maybe you have a better word than conservative but that sounds pretty conservative to me.


307 posted on 03/11/2006 5:34:25 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ

Don't place undue emphasis upon grammatical necessities. "...between the states so ratifying the same" is to distinguish them from the states in the previous government which did not ratify the new form. A Constitution is not a contract between states but underlying a People. But even mere contracts cannot be unilaterally abrogated without consequences.


308 posted on 03/11/2006 5:39:52 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: brazzaville

Lol just my little dig at Hamilton's opponents being mainly small minded grafters like Billy Boy.


309 posted on 03/11/2006 5:41:26 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

It is a complete falsehood to claim the anti-Federalists were the "old patriots" when it is simple to determine that the backbone of the Federalist party was precisely the same officers of Washington's army who made up the Society of the Cincinnati. Almost all the major leaders of the party were either in the Continental Army or the state militias.

That cannot be truthfully said of the democrat faction which grew out of the anti-Federalists.

There was no such thing as an "old patriot" which does not include those who fought their entire adult life to create and stengthen their country. Petty grafters are almost never "old patriots" and those were the main opposition to Washington and Hamilton and the true patriots.


310 posted on 03/11/2006 5:48:35 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Gianni

Transforming a two to one opposition into a three vote margin was absolutely a STUNNING victory. It was one of the rare moments when sheer brilliance and incisive logic converts those who have been well served by the past chaos like the Clintonians.

Clinton's machine was SO dominant that not only was he elected six times in a row to the Governor's office but it prevented New York from signing the Constitution so Yates and Lansing became laughable footnotes in history rather than proud signatories to the birth of a New Era.

It was almost a slam dunk that Clinton's forces would have prevented ratification. But betting against one of the greatest geniuses this hemisphere ever produced was a Loser.

Insurrection is not the "People resuming" the power of sovereignty. Such a thing is the act of the whole people not a minority acting outside all legal channels.


311 posted on 03/11/2006 6:00:03 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ

Who denies there were some sovereign powers possessed by states even the Bill of Rights did not apply to them in 1860? Did not the federal government recognize a sovereign "right" of some states to legalize slavery and others not to?

The point is no state had the right to unilaterally change the constitution, that sovereignty was never possessed nor renounced since the American People predated the Articles, the States and the Constitution all of which were an expression of that People. Unite or Die was the only choice. Forces of the Slavers joined the forces of death.

There were "NO tyrannical assumptions of authority" except by those attempting to attack the United States of America and those assumptions were trumped by the magnificent leader Abraham Lincoln.


312 posted on 03/11/2006 6:09:04 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

STates were never in existence until the Union was formed so of course you are completely wrong.


313 posted on 03/11/2006 6:09:59 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: RFEngineer; Potowmack
But go a little bit south, and you're basically in Mississippi.

Sounds like Potomack hasn't spent too much time south of the beltway.

314 posted on 03/11/2006 6:23:30 PM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights (GOP, The Other France)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Though he stands among our nations giants, he is not without flaw.

He really doesn't seem to me the classic liberal, in that he was very strong-handed with his economic policies. Were it not for the need for centralized power to carry out the plan, his politics may have leaned more toward those of Henry, Lee, Martin, and the others that opposed him in consolidation.

It is an intersting hypothesis, no doubt. Were it not for the heavy handed economic policies of Hamilton, is it even possible that the states, seeking their own self-interest, would have held together, or flown apart even earlier than 1860? It is easy to see that a grant of power would be necessary in order to coordinate interest toward common benefit, but the question rapidly turns to where the line was drawn; it seems obvious in the ratification debates and documents that no state was willing to subject itself to exploitation by the others.

315 posted on 03/12/2006 5:04:48 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit; 4CJ
The point is no state had the right to unilaterally change the constitution, that sovereignty was never possessed nor renounced since the American People predated the Articles, the States and the Constitution all of which were an expression of that People. Unite or Die was the only choice. Forces of the Slavers joined the forces of death.

But 'Unite or die' was turned on it's head. It was not John Brown's raid that so frightened the South, but the Northern celebration of it.

Were it the case today that Churches west of the Mississippi tolled their bells on September 11th in honor of the POS hijackers, imagine the outrage on the Eastern seaboard. I think that many who cry for Union do not grasp the depth of division and hate that the country felt in 1860.

316 posted on 03/12/2006 5:10:52 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Everybody (usually) has 8 Great Great Grandfathers.

Fewer if cousins marry in any intervening generation. Results will vary depending on what part of Virginia we're talking about here.

317 posted on 03/12/2006 5:15:05 AM PST by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

There are those places!


318 posted on 03/12/2006 5:42:40 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
It is a complete falsehood to claim the anti-Federalists were the "old patriots" when it is simple to determine that the backbone of the Federalist party was precisely the same officers of Washington's army who made up the Society of the Cincinnati.

It is complete stupidity to tell someone who knows what he is talking about that something they said, which can be backed up in the historical record, "is a complete falsehood".

Didn't you ever learn not to put your elbows in the soup?

First, I wasn't talking about the Society of the Cincinnati. I was talking about the patriotic party of the American Revolution who sat in the Continental Congresses and signed the Declaration of Independence.

Sam Adams and John Hancock, whose signature on the Declaration was big enough that even you can see it, were both Antifederalists, and that is documented history. Patrick Henry was one of the most eloquent voices of the Antifederalist majority who opposed the ratification of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson likewise was numbered among the old patriots; Jefferson came to stand at the head of the Antifederalist coalition, which eventually became the Democratic Republicans, later the National Democracy.

George Clinton, the Governor of New York, George Mason, and very many of the old patriots and commentators who wrote articles supporting the Antifederalist positions also made up the Antifederalist cause, which became part of Jefferson's party.

Almost all the major leaders of the party were either in the Continental Army or the state militias.

I didn't say they were Tories. I wasn't even talking about them. I was talking about the Antifederalists and the defenders of the liberty interest, as opposed to the business interest represented by the Federalist faction in the Philadelphia Convention.

That cannot be truthfully said of the democrat faction which grew out of the anti-Federalists.

Yes, it can. Prove me wrong.

There was no such thing as an "old patriot" which does not include those who fought their entire adult life to create and stengthen their country.

As a matter of fact, there was -- and I just identified their faction and named their leaders.

Petty grafters are almost never "old patriots" and those were the main opposition to Washington and Hamilton and the true patriots.

Smear artist. Dipping your pen in old newspaper ink, are you? Prove it. Prove your smear, smear-boy.

Your definition of everyone not named Washington or Hamilton or a friend of either of the two, is now a "petty grafter"?

John Hancock was a "petty grafter" the minute he disagreed with Hamilton, the businessman's lawyer?

Patrick Henry was a "petty grafter"? George Mason? What a smear-artist you are!

Washington was pretty broad with his own expense account -- but you don't see me dipping my pen in vitriol the way you regularly do, to call him a "petty grafter," just because he had a political disagreement with Patrick Henry!

319 posted on 03/12/2006 11:41:07 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit; All
oh really???

that would have been a surprise to the patriots of 1776.

ever heard of CT,DE,GA,NC,NH,NJ,NY,SC,MA,MD,RI,VA & VT??? (HINT: those were the first 13 STATES!)

as usual, you either show your arrogant ignorance of the FACTS and/or you HOPE everyone else is DUMB enough to believe your FICTIONS!

free dixie,sw

320 posted on 03/12/2006 12:25:43 PM PST by stand watie ( Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God. -----T.Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 1,321-1,331 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson