Posted on 01/15/2007 9:38:08 AM PST by SmithL
Columbia, S.C. -- Sen. Joseph Biden, a Democratic presidential hopeful joining fellow Sen. Christopher Dodd at Martin Luther King Jr. holiday events, said Monday he thinks the Confederate flag should be kept off South Carolina's Statehouse grounds.
"If I were a state legislator, I'd vote for it to move off the grounds — out of the state," the Delaware senator said before the civil rights group held a march and rally at the Statehouse here to support its boycott of the state.
In Chicago, Sen. Barack Obama, also prominently mentioned in speculation about the White House sweepstakes in 2008, was a hit at a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition breakfast honoring King, even if he didn't deliver what much of the crowd clearly wanted: a declaration that he will run for president.
Obama received a standing ovation at the annual King scholarship breakfast when the Rev. Jesse Jackson introduced him with an approving reference to the Illinois Democrat's presidential aspirations.
"It's a long, nonstop line between the march in Selma in 1965 and the inauguration in Washington in 2009," said Jackson, the coalition's founder and a one-time presidential candidate himself.
Later, in an address at a King remembrance service at St. Mark's Church in suburban Harvey, Obama said: "I'm not making news today. I'm not here to make news. There will be a time for that."
More than six years after the Confederate flag was taken down from the South Carolina Capitol dome, its location in front of the Statehouse remains an issue at the heart of events celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy.
Jim Hanks stood across from the Statehouse with about 35 Confederate flag supporters.
"We love this flag. We love our heritage," said Hanks, of Lexington.
Some carried signs saying: "South Carolina does not want Chris Dodd,"...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
WHEN DID BIDEN BECOME SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA.
I had a wonderful Lee-Jackson(-King) day up here in Virginia, thanks!
I always got a chuckle out of the fact that for years here, the holiday was officially known as Lee-Jackson-King Day. Hey, it wasn't OUR fault there was a conflict on the third Monday in January, we were there first!
}:-)4
Just like my comment about Yankees, it applies only to LIBERALS/LEFT-WINGERS.
Hey Biden go F yourself.
Delaware has gone to hell since the DuPonts lost control of the place...
When it was flying above the capitol building...a compromise was worked out to remove it to a memorial on the grounds of the statehouse. If they want to back off the compromise, then I say fly it above the capitol building again...until they realize what the word "compromise" means.
Got a book that details all of the atrocities mentioned and all are taken directly from the US Army's records. You still want to call them a "southron myth"?! I suppose next you'll claim that the records were forged to make the US Army look bad.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You all would have us believe that there wasn't a moman between 13 and 130 who wasn't violated, a house that wasn't burned, an stick of furniture that wasn't stolen. Were there isolated incidents of criminal activity on the part of some Union soldiers? Sure. Was it official policy or condoned by the Union command. No. Were the rebel soldiers any better in their own way? No.
i, for one, HOPE the DIMocRATS ALL "get on the bandwagon" against our flag.
then they'll LOSE ALL the southland & a lot of other states!
free dixie,sw
This is the same Joe Biden that was recently bragging about Delaware being a former slave state.
Fixed it. It's only because the federal government became so powerful with respect to the states that you complain about it. If it were feeble and the states were all powerful, they'd be oppressive in their own way, as all governments can be, and as the states were earlier in our history. If the country had been split up, we'd be complaining about that now with just as much passion and certainty.
White v Texas allowed two exceptions to the indissoluble union thesis: revolution OR consent of the States. NS almost always refers to the Southern secession movement as a rebellion, as do most of his yankee brethren. Therefore, he agrees with Chase that the union could be dissolved legally via rebellion which means that everything that the United States of America did to the Confederate States of America subsequent to the Southern 'rebellion' was, and still is, illegal.
The White v Texas U.S. Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions. The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain "reconstruction" acts of the U.S. Congress, as was common throughout the post war South. Among those requirements was accepting a new state constitution dictated by the U.S. through armed force. Stalinists did the same thing to coerce independent nations into the "indissoluble Soviet Union.".
NS blathers on ad infinitum with statements such as, "Those of us in the real Red states prefer to fight for our country and not just walk away from it."
But Rush rightly reminds us on a regular basis that sometimes you have to "vote with your feet". Jefferson did. Washington did. Henry did. And most of the colonists joined them.
I guess NS needs to go to mother England and begin the fight to get the Colonies back.
There were plenty of negro women who were raped by the very troops who supposedly came to emancipate them, but then I guess in your eyes they don't count. More than just a few isolated incidents I'm afraid. Also the plunder(theft) of household items wasn't just done by the common soldiers, officers were involved also, and more than just a few isolated incidents as well. Was it official policy or condoned by the Union command - YES - because most of it happened during Sherman's March. Also your assertion about Southern troops is quite misleading because there you might find a few isolated incidents, however it was neither widespread or overlooked. Face it - you lose on this one.
No, rebellion means that the the rebels have reverted to the "state of nature" and thrown out the law altogether. It's the equivalent of hitting the reset button. Suppressing a rebellion is clearly legal, since the Constitution makes specific provision for doing so.
In Madison's letter to Daniel Webster, he says,
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy
Then there's Lee's letter from 1.23,1861:
Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled.
Title? Author?
That's a ridiculous statement. The Southern states didn't resort to anarchy, as you suggest.
Don't even try that here.
Chief Justice Chase mentioned two ways the Union could be dissolved, he didn't say that both were legal and how you can somehow stumble to the conclusion that the court said rebellion was legal is beyond me. There was one legal way to leave, through the consent of the states. There was another illegal way to leave, armed rebellion. The South chose the second way and paid the penalty for their folly.
The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain "reconstruction" acts of the U.S. Congress, as was common throughout the post war South.
Since their acts of secession were illegal, Texas was never out of the Union for a single moment. However, having freely entered into armed rebellion against the central government they just as freely accepted the consequences of their actions. One of those consequences was loss of their representation in Congress until they fulfilled certain requirements.
But Rush rightly reminds us on a regular basis that sometimes you have to "vote with your feet". Jefferson did. Washington did. Henry did. And most of the colonists joined them.
The difference is that they won their rebellion while you lost your's.
I never said that. What I have said is that the southron claim that such actions were policy and encouraged by Union commanders is nonsense.
Also the plunder(theft) of household items wasn't just done by the common soldiers, officers were involved also, and more than just a few isolated incidents as well.
So you keep telling us.
Was it official policy or condoned by the Union command - YES - because most of it happened during Sherman's March.
Because it happened under Sherman's command then that means it was his official policy and condoned by him? Is that how it works? So I assume that all those free blacks abducted by rebel troops in Pennsylvania and Maryland were seized because it was Lee's official policy and condoned by him? Or does that just work for Yankees?
Also your assertion about Southern troops is quite misleading because there you might find a few isolated incidents, however it was neither widespread or overlooked
It was wider spread than you care to admit, and it certainly was overlooked. At least I've not found a single documented incident of a southern soldier or officer being punished for swiping a free black or looting a Pennsylvania farmhouse. You just like to pretend otherwise.
Perhaps I spoke too loosely. They rejected the Constitution, leaving themselves outside its protections. Similarly, the United States didn't resort to anarchy when they rebelled against Britain, but they did remove themselves from the protection of British law and the British had every legal right to suppress the rebellion. The difference is that they couldn't while the United States could. The fact that in both cases society didn't utterly break down only means that we're civilized.
Teleological fallacy and appeal to force in lieu of argument. Non-responsive. You lose.
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.