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 ...
I would never try to teach you about opera.
zzzzz.
You are the only one around demonstrating hatred. Baghdaddy
That would be the People who built a memorial to him in white marble in the District of Columbia. And I guess that's why his home is kept as a national monument.
Gutzom Borglum should have checked with you before putting Jefferson up on Mount Rushmore, should he?
And those school boards that named all those schools after Jefferson need to be overridden, don't they? And those States slapped around, that have counties and cities named for Jefferson, don't you think?
Nasty little jackboot, who do you think you're impressing with this drivel?
don't you care that FReepers are rotfl AT you???
or are you so DUMB & clueLESS that you really don't know that you are the BUTT of jokes on FR, just like your buddy, "m.eSPINola" is???
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Laughter from your tiny clique of malacontents? Why would I or any other rational person care?
Madison settled this issue theoretically. Andy Jackson practically begged for a chance to do so militarily but the South Carolina cowards slunk away and didn't give him the chance. And Lincoln settled it practically and permanently.
There is nothing to prove to anyone aware of the facts. This excludes you Baghdad but no one cares.
why not head over to DU & join the other lunatics, who hate dixie & her people??? (we southerners are really glad you LEFT dixie. stay gone.)
take "mr. spin" with you. the two of you will fit in really well on DU, with the other south-HATERS & lunatics who USED to be FReepers.
free dixie,sw
we think NOT!
free dixie,sw
"Perpetual" just doesn't have the meaning you think it does.
In law, the meaning of "perpetual" is more precise, and has been since the 17th century. It is not an exact synonym for "permanent". If the Framers had meant "permanent," they'd have written "permanent" all over the Constitution. They didn't. It's the dog that didn't bark.
And no, your barking doesn't make up for it, and yours doesn't count. And no, you are not Orwell's Squealer the little pig, with his paint pot and his ladder.
That's why I tell you to read a book sometime, and buy or borrow a clue. It's because I know you'll refuse to do either, and your refusal is what pantses you before any fair-minded person reading this thread.
Your table-pounding, wilful ignorance of American history and American constitutional law make the case against your distortions of history more eloquently than anything I or 4CJ or anyone else on this thread could do.
Go on, quote the whole thing, liar-by-omission.
You're not giving Jefferson enough credit, stand.
LOL!
in a MORE civilized time (@1700-1840), "JSU&TI" & several of the other members of the DY coven would have been kept busy accepting (or more likely running from!) "requests for satisfaction at arms".
my guess is that MOST of them would have "tucked tail & run for the state line".
TALK on "the worldwidewierd" is CHEAP.
free dixie,sw
thanks for pointing out my error of calculation!
rotflmRao!
free dixie,sw
Those states were never truly out of the Union, never acted as if they were and, in Rhode Island's case, wrote a letter begging not to be treated as a foreign nation. Washington assured him it would not be as all assumed this glitch would be overcome once the Know Nothings were removed from a position of sabotage.
No one has argued that ratification may not be universal. But even those states which did NOT ratify were not out of the Union.
"The Truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the Articles of Confederation....If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of New Powers to the Union, than in the invigoration of its Original Powers." JM
I know the Clowns won't but could not care less.
One of those ex-Southerners who can't stand the South. Tom Wicker calumniates them in the pages of The New York Times, JSUATI just foams at the mouth on FR.
As soon as they ratified the Constitution, they were out of the old "perpetual" Union.
So which Union are we talking about?
Can't be in both simultaneously -- States aren't quarks or neutrinos.
Your basic problem is, you just don't have an argument. The Constitution is the only Union worth talking about when you start to talk about 1860. And no, its Union did not predate the States, and no, there was no "mystery BS" about the Union: sign on the dotted line, you're in. Resign, you're out.
The Confederate States resigned from the Union by Acts of the People (with the exception of Arkansas, which might have had a problem legally, since they seceded by an act of the legislature), and those Acts of the People amended, modified, and abrogated their previous and symmetrical Acts of ratification.
The Constitution was an agreement among the States on paper. It wasn't a mystical document. It didn't command the States, and the Declaration of Independence didn't command the States to sign it. Nobody commanded the States to sign the Declaration of Independence or ratify the Constitution. It's just shills and intellectual three-card monte artists like you who go around telling us that States were nothing, States are nothing, yada yada yada, hear my voice and obey, I am Vigo!!
Next you're going to be telling us that the States didn't even have the right to ratify the Constitution, but only to submit.
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.