Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
My mistake. Since you capitalized it I had assumed you were talking about Vattel’s book and not James Wilson’s lectures. But even Justice Wilson agreed that there were limits on a state’s sovereignty.
From their belicose rhetoric at the time the southern rebels thought just the opposite. They were certain that the North was weak and could be soundly whipped before it was time to harvest next years cotton crop. I doubt you could find a single member of the Confederate cabinet who agreed (on the record) with your premise.
Now, if the original rebels didn't believe they were in such dire straits from the outset, why should historians write that into the script?
Yes, and that limit on state sovereignty included not only the civil States, but also the general government of the United States as defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.
§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
#####So do I#####
If you’re a conservative you’d better be very thankful that the North fought to keep the South from leaving the Union. Without Dixie, the rest of America would resemble Sweden by now. Try mustering support for the War on Terror without the South. Try stopping socialized medicine without the South. Try putting a non-leftist on the Supreme Court without the South. Try electing a GOP president without the South.
Granted, it’s not an either/or thing. There are plenty of patriots in the North, and we have our share of rats down here. But look at overall election results and it’s pretty clear that the South is all that’s keeping America from becoming a pacifist/socialist nation of the European Union variety.
The Rebel Flag means a lot to many Southerners. To us it’s a symbol of regional pride and resistance to centralized government power. Why join the hysterical left in getting so upset about it?
What does it mean when someone says “The South Shall Rise Again”? It means the South, devastated by the Civil War, will rebound and become a strong part of America. In fact, it’s already done that, and thank God for it, because I hate to even think what America would look like if the South didn’t have political clout. The South didn’t rebel out of hatred for American ideals. If that had been the case, the South would have been a problem region in subsequent wars. Instead, Dixie has been almost certainly been the least likely sector of the country to produce dissent during wartime.
We proudly wave the American Flag, but wish to sometimes wave our Confederate Flags as well. That didn’t bother most people until pretty recently. As I’ve said in other posts, you can trace the PC hysteria over the Rebel Flag back to Carol Moseley-Braun’s racist temper tantrum on the Senate floor back around 1993 or so. It was a leftist gambit and it paid off when half the GOP senators went into a panic (”Oh gee, if we vote for a Rebel Flag trademark Dan Rather might call us racists tonight on CBS News....maybe we’d better join with Carol and denounce the Confederacy as an eternal evil”). Ever since then there’s been an unrelenting drumbeat to eradicate every symbol of the Confederacy from the face of the earth. And, as always, the GOP paid for its cowardice by being put on the defensive, where they remain to this day on the Rebel Flag issue.
Of course, this is all just an opening battle of a bigger war to eradicate America itself. Once it’s universally accepted that a flag that flew over slavery is unworthy, how are you gonna defend Old Glory? How are you gonna defend slaveowners Washington, Jefferson, and Madison? For that matter, how will you defend Lincoln’s clear belief that blacks are inferior? I’m not denouncing Lincoln, I’m just noting that once you set a precedent that certain things are unforgivable sins, deserving of being purged from civil society, you might be expected to be consistent on the issue.
I’ll be interested to see how PC Conservatives, who are so bent out of shape over the Confederacy and Rebel Flags, react when the very same standards are applied against the American Flag, the Founding Fathers, and even Lincoln. For surely you realize that’s what the left is building toward. They recently (and stupidly) have passed some bills in various southern legislatures apologizing for slavery. What was the response from the left and the “civil rights” community? Did they say, “Thank you for the apology, now we can put this behind us and move forward?” No, they immediately declared that the apology wasn’t enough and they’ll return in a couple of years with a new set of demands. Likewise, once Jefferson Davis and General Lee are trashed, it won’t be enough. The same people “offended” by their memory will then be “offended” by Madison and Lincoln. The anti-Confederacy crusade is setting the precedents which will be used to nullify America itself.
Okay, we know how you feel about the argument. Now show that it's wrong.
That's because the Dresden School's defaults are all set to total destruction of non-Communist society.
The Marxist-Leninists' stock argument is that there must be absolutely nothing left of the old society, nothing left of its politics and its institutions, and that the revolutionaries must present the new politburo with a blank slate and an utterly devastated land, so that they can work their collectivizing magic, no bourgeoise holdovers must be allowed to survive, bla bla bla.
That's their debating position......their strategy is to be impossible to talk to and completely implacable on every issue, bullyragging their competition into complete submission. Appeasing them means the irrevocable grant of total power as the bare minimum.
What they need is a damn good world-class butt-stomping instead. They got one in Chile and another in Argentina, and yet another in Indonesia -- that's why they are insisting on holding "war crimes" tribunals in those countries for the people who beat them, including Henry Kissinger for backing Augusto Pinochet in Chile.
Events?
I know, that's so rad.
How about some of your favorite quotes?
It it was all a plot by Lincoln against a South with nothing but peaceful intentions then they could have foiled the whole thing by just not firing a shot. Why didn't they try that?
They possess, and enjoy the fruits of republican industry and frugality, without any landed or other aristocracy. And yet the petty district of ten miles square is to overrule in its policy and legislation all, that is venerable and admirable in state legislation! The states, and the people of the states are represented in congress. The district has no representatives there; but is subjected to the exclusive legislation of the former. And yet congress, at home republican, will here nourish aristocracy. The states will here lay the foundation for the destruction of their own institutions, rights, and sovereignty. At home, they will follow the legislation of the district, instead of guiding it by their precept and example. They will choose to be the engines of tyranny and oppression in the district, that they may become enslaved within their own territorial sovereignty. What, but a disposition to indulge in all sorts of delusions and alarms, could create such extraordinary flights of imagination?
How little he knew.
They did. Abe wouldn’t leave them alone.</i>
Actually, it goes back a little further, to an op-ed that appeared in The New York Times in 1991. The author was a scallywagging Southern hand-licker liberal named Garganus, and his piece ran about three years after "Pinchy" Sulzberger took over the editorship of the paper and turned its editorial (and personnel) policy hard to the left on the subject of homosexuality.
Whether "Pinchy" ordained similar turns to the left on other subjects, I'd be interested to know, but it would seem in retrospect that the campaign against the Confederate Battle Flag began with his assumption of the mantle.
It's part of our history and should not be hidden.
Beware of those that want to hide it or somehow ban it.
Pure, unadulterated BS.
Thanks for the info. I wasn’t aware of the Garganus editorial, but it doesn’t surprise me that Sulzberger’s New York Treason would be the launching pad for anti-Confederacy Political Correctness.
This is such BS...it means nothing like that whatsoever.
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.