Posted on 08/16/2013 10:19:12 AM PDT by Impala64ssa
The NAACP in Lee County, Florida wants to picket the county over a portrait of General Robert E. Lee that hangs in the commission chambers because they deem displaying Lee's image to be racist. "It's a symbol of racism and division," Lee County NAACP President James Muwakkil said. According to Fox 4, "Muwakkil sent a letter to Lee County commissioners in early July, asking them to take down the portrait, but they voted to keep it up." On Sunday, Muwakkil fired off an email saying, "General Lee did not believe blacks should hold any positions in government." Muwakkil is reportedly "brainstorming with the state NAACP President ways to move forward, which could include a sit-in at the chambers, picketing and protesting." The state NAACP is supporting Muwakkil's efforts.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“General Lee did not believe blacks should hold any positions in government.”
And has been proven to be true.
Wear your Klan hood much?
“Lee didn’t even support slavery’’.<, So why did he fight to preserve it?
‘Lee, Jeb, Stonewall are my heroes too.’’<< You go for them losers, huh?
LOL! Lost Causer dream headline :War Over! Brutal industrial North defeated by gentlemanly , agricultural South!’’.
Perhaps the Peale portrait?
Watched the Judge's comments. He seems to be under the peculiar impression that treason against the United States consists of levying war against any one of them.
Which would of course make Andrew Jackson guilty of treason, as he prepared to launch war against SC when it threatened secession.
It also would make it quite impossible for the federal government to fulfill its obligation to guarantee every state a republican form of government, since any state taken over by an oligarchy or dictatorship could simply claim it would be treason to use force to remove that unconstitutional government.
The judge also does not appear to recognize that most of the violations of liberty by Lincoln were also put in place by Davis, often first by him.
The basic problem is that the Constitution is very elastic, but it is not infinitely elastic. It was not designed by the Founders to be able to stretch across and enclose a great civil war. Go back sometime and read how the Founders themselves handled their own opponents in the civil war within the Revolution. The Loyalists were handled far more harshly than secessionists and their sympathizers during and after the WBTS.
What is astonishing is not that constitutional liberties took a major hit during the War. It's that they were respected as much as they were, and that they were restored at the end of the war, with remarkably little vengeance taken on the defeated. At least if you compare our civil war to any other great civil war in history rather than some delusional war somewhere fought without violating anyone's human rights.
There is difference between the hate opinions you spew and the NAACP.
Statistics. Half of all slave owners held fewer than 5 slaves which tends to indicate that the average slave owner was not a plantation owner.
The NAACP is the exact same creature as the Muslim Brotherhood. They cry so much about imagined slights. They push every extreme of human decency and civility. I watched a bunch of Muslim Brotherhood talking heads on AlJazeera last night, showing off dead bodies- saying that they had “lost their rights and were being oppressed”
I bet they killed those people, or there were some good actors there. Honestly.
I suspect these groups have the same community organizer.
Shut up NAACP. GO away. You should be embarrassed of yourselves.
No. But the great majority of southern people were farmers. It seems likely most of this half of slaves worked in the fields alongside their masters. Yeomen farmers and all that.
Certainly a small southern farmer couldn’t afford to have the labor of a slave employed only in non-productive household task stuff, anymore than a small northern farmer could afford to hire three or four servants to help his wife around the house.
Of those slaves who were indeed household servants, it is likely the vast majority of them were slaves of planters or city people, professionals and such. But these groups were a very small part of the southern population, most of whom were small farmers, some of whom owned slaves and others who did not.
Why don’t you email the judge and tell him he’s wrong. LOL.
I did - he didn’t reply.
If he does reply, please post to FR. I am interested in seeing what the judge says.
Sherman Logan, post #106: "Watched the Judge's comments.
He seems to be under the peculiar impression that treason against the United States consists of levying war against any one of them."
rockrr, post #99: "If Napolitano claims that anyone other than the confederates committed treason then he is committing the equivalent of journalistic malpractice.
He (and you) should be ashamed."
Much as I admire Napolitano, something was seriously missing from his education.
Some years ago on the radio he claimed that George Washington was called a "terrorist" by the Brits, even though the word "terrorist" was not used until many years after the American Revolution.
Well, OK, it's a small thing, a fine point of history which you really can't expect a judge to know, especially if he has a nice political point to make.
But the Constitution's definition of "treason" is something every lawyer, much less judge, should absolutely understand and never confuse the perpetrators of treason with those who constitutionally fought to defeat it.
Napolitano's obvious confusion and disorientation could be instantly corrected, if he simply remembered that the United States under President Lincoln waged no war against the Confederacy until after the Confederacy first started war (at Fort Sumter) and then formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
Finally, the good judge might remember that Union "invasions" and operations within self-declared Confederate states were matched, to the degree possible, by Confederate invasions and operations within Union states and territories.
So the Confederacy did what it could to destroy the United States, but fortunately, Confederates were unsuccessful.
You do realize that this presentation was from a couple of years ago - right? If he was inclined to respond he would have done so long ago.
My guess is that he would just as soon forget ever producing it.
President Wilson also believed that blacks should not hold any position in government ... and he acted on his beliefs.
He also claimed states seceded to protect themselves against unconstitutional federal laws and tariffs.
Same claim is frequently made on FR. I’ve often requested those making the claim to point out which federal laws prior to secession were unconstitutional. Have yet to receive an even semi-coherent response.
This is for the simple reason that no state seceded, by their own declaration, due to unconstitutional federal acts. They seceded because they thought the federal government might engage in unconstitutional acts in the future. IOW, secession was openly pre-emptive, not reactive.
Of course I do. I’m go for loser’ stuff such as producing blockbuster movies in Hollywood and TV, and I drive loser Benz cars, own loser Barrett Jackson sports cars and shag at least 3 chicks at the casting couch...per week. This damn losers. My life sucks.
And you have a blog post to prove it!
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.