What Does It Mean "The South Shall Rise Again":

The Wichita (KS) Eagle ^ | 23 May 2007 | Mark McCormick

[Rebeleye]

...he was stunned to see two large Confederate flags flying from trucks...emblazoned with the words "The South Shall Rise Again." I'm stunned, too, that people still think it is cool to fly this flag. Our society should bury these flags -- not flaunt them...because the Confederate flag symbolizes racial tyranny to so many... ...This flag doesn't belong on city streets, in videos or in the middle of civil discussion. It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.

[Jason_b]

Thanks for that.

It was a good read. I don't want to give up looking for freedom. But I don't want to be a Don Quixote either. Sometimes it's hard knowing how much is enough.

Best.

[GOP_Raider]

No worries, I just thought CA had become part of the Confederacy without my knowledge. ;)

[Barnacle]

In California I sometimes hear anti-southern bigotry, often by people who have very shallow roots in this country.

Interesting.

I think they get their bigotry from what they see in movies.

Possibly. Though I haven't picked up on that myself, Hollywood is after all bent on driving wedges between Americans. White vs. Black, male vs. female, etc, why not North vs. South?

[Barnacle]

It's a pity you can't overcome your emoting, liberal mindset as well as your your public education indoctrination and get past the 'slavery is eeeevil' issue long enough to realize that the Civil War was the first step to stripping the States of their legitimate authority and to consolidate power in the federal government.

Here's a question for you. Let's see if you can answer it plain and simple...

If the South were to "rise again", would you be for or against slavery?

[Rabble]

Again I'll ask the Question:

"Its actually stated in the preamble that government exists to secure the individual liberty's of the people. Therefore slavery is illegal."

If that is truly the case and slavery was illegal under the original constitution's preamble, then why was the 13th amendment to the constitution necessary? Thats the amendment that prohibits slavery and was declared in force December 18, 1865.

[BnBlFlag]

Your #597...........ROTFLMAO!!!!!

[BnBlFlag]

“..........sitting on the front porch watching lightning bugs and listning to crickets chirping”.

I wast doing that very thing earlier this evenin’ enjoyin’ it with a cold glass of sweet tea!

[BnBlFlag]

Your #659.........Good post!

[Jason_b]

Thank you kindly for saying so. I've gotten reactions ranging from "nut" to "MOVE if you don't like DC." Glad to have yours.

This in: since I posted I have been filtering through the internet and I find there are groups advocating becoming primary state citizens. These groups are primarily interested in not paying taxes.

I think anyone who can think only of not paying taxes doesn't see the big picture.

Katrina gun confiscation victims are now in that bigger picture. People whose property is being taken via Kelo is in that bigger picture. Somehow the illegal alien situation fits into the bigger picture.

A critical point is being reached when we can no longer fail to see the problem and fix it. As an imperfect person I am trying to suggest the problem might be with our citizenship choices. Others might have more relevant ideas. So be it.

Since I'm posting anyway, I found this. It has not been verified (by me) for authenticity. So if it interests you, do your own due dilligence and verify it. I plan to do so for myself.

Quote: I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad; but it is evident that they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States**, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy until they are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union. [People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870)]

I do hope that case is real and exists on record, or I look bad for posting it. It is not on the internet except a few freedom movement sites. It will need to be verified at a law library, in a book.

[catfish1957]

Bump...

Interesting that the Civil War lasted 4 years. We have been fighting it out at least 9 years (Starting lurking here in '98. Remember the days when Whiskey Papa (Wlat) polluted these boards.

[Lee'sGhost]

You have to forgive Non-sensical. He gets like that every time he knows he has lost the debate — just like a liberal. Funny thing about my tag line is, he suggested it.

Go figure.

[smug]

But the land was deeded to the government by the act of the legislature in 1836. South Carolina had no claims to it.

Not so, the legislation was merely a ploy by the state to quash Mag. Laval's claim. I think this is where you may have obtained the said legislation.

Ownership of Fort Sumter By Bob Huddleston

"When Laval appeared on the scene, the Corps of Engineers stopped work and asked for instructions. It appeared that Laval had filed a proper claim for the land - except that the "land" was below low tide and therefore exempt from purchase. Well South Carolina was aghast! They did not want to lose the fort to protect themselves, nor the payrolls that would come with the completed fort. The result was a state law: Committee on Federal Relations In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836 "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution: "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state. "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded. "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session. "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House: "T. W. Glover, C. H. R." "In Senate, December 21st, 1836 "Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order: Jacob Warly, C. S. Poor Maj. Laval lost his scheme to blackmail the United States! For those wishing to further pursue the ownership of Fort Sumter, et. al, most major libraries will have American State Papers: Documents Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States, Military Affairs, vol. 5, Twenty-third Congress, Second Session, No. 591, "The Construction of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina," pp. 463-472. It was not until January 1841 that work was resumed on the site of Fort Sumter. Laval's claim was invalidated by the State attorney general under act of the South Carolina Legislature, December 20, 1837. But the harbor issue remained and was complicated still further by a memorial presented to the Legislature by James C. Holmes, Charleston lawyer, on that same date.".

However, Not before November 22, 1841, was the Federal Government's title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina. Fort Sumter Historical Handbook Series - publication of the National Park Service. 1961.)

The simple "recording" does not in itself render the deed "perfect". The fact that it was filed on behalf of the federal government is in no way more legitimate than any other recorded deed. It is still subject to scrutiny. Please note from the legislation; That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same,...

[M Kehoe]

Could somebody e-mail this thread to Richard Ney? I'm sure he's gonna like my post...

I wish I were in the land of cotton where old times there are not forgotten, look away, look away, look away Dixie Land. In Dixie Land I'll make my stand to live and die in Dixie, look away...

That should make him happy.

5.56mm

[humblegunner]

Hell yeah.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

If you believe that, then you don't understand the old south. They had a very strong sense of community and kinship with one another. They would have never did that to their own. Things are changing alot with the migration of so many people from all over and foreign countries, too. But the old southerners weren't like you described them.

The people of the Old South may not have been that way, but history shows that the rotten Confederate States of America abused and exploited their own people.

The Confederacy shows what happens when a free people entrusts power to a nonproductive political class.

From Jefferson Davis to Hillary and Jesse Jackson, Democrats never change.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I honor the CBF for the brave men who fought under it for a principle they believed in - which by the way was NOT slavery - it was states rights.

I'll I agree with that to a point, if it is recognized that the cowardly men behind the rebellion, who exempted their own class from military service, set up the Confederacy for the benefit of the institution of slavery. If the despised southern mud sills could be convinced that it was really states' rights that they were fighting for, then so much the better.

But an 1860s man in Winton County Alabama had the Confederacy (Slavery Inc.) figured out well:

"All tha want is to git you...to fight for their infernal Negroes and after you do their fightin' you may kiss their hind parts for o tha care." [

[mad_as_he$$]

There have been very few wars where the ruling class wasn’t covering their a$$es.

[Non-Sequitur]

Still smiling?