Posted on 12/09/2001 3:44:54 AM PST by shuckmaster
And why? Because of who their law clients were? Morris Dees once defended a guy whose legal fees were paid by the klan. Do you call Dees a "klan lawyer"?
Mine, or Kirk's either. Who remembers that he represented Black plaintiffs from Waco? This is a Yankee, liberal effort to turn Conservatives against each other. Call one of us a rascist, and watch the support scatter.
The liberals are much better at coallition building. They are less defensive. Kirk is right. Decentralize government, return political power to the local level.
They hate us, but not as much as they hate our ideas.
For Southern Independence
Larry Salley
Return the Constitution to the people. America was founded on the premise that the Federal government was there as an umbrella, providing protection for the several states, not as a steamroller. The several states were to retain sovereignity over local matters, as they should.
PRESS RELEASE Southern Legal Resource Center, Inc. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 6, 2001 Contact: Allison Schaum 864-605-1019
The Southern Legal Resource Center, Inc. takes strong exception to the distorted characterization of its Chief Trial Counsel Kirk D. Lyons in a December 3, 2001 Dallas Morning News article: "Not Surrendering in Civil War Battle."
In an otherwise accurate article about the ongoing Confederate vigil in front of the Texas Supreme Court building, Dallas Morning News reporter Christy Hoppe claimed, "Kirk Lyons, a lawyer who also has represented KKK leaders and white supremacists, filed the suit last June on behalf of the Sons of Confederate Veterans," referring to a lawsuit filed to compel the return of the Confederate Memorial plaques.
Throughout his legal career, Mr. Lyons has represented a varied clientele that over 10 years ago did include some of the groups mentioned by Ms. Hoppe. However worthy their case, Mr. Lyons does not represent such groups in his current work, which is the full time defense of Southern Heritage. For the DMN to use these distant client associations to tar the vigil, the SCV lawsuit and the SLRC's Chief Trial Counsel is unfair, defamatory and not worthy of a Texas Newspaper. To make it worse, the Dallas Morning News did not bother to call the SLRC before writing the article.
The Southern Legal Resource Center, Inc. is a non-profit, tax exempt South Carolina public law firm that specializes in cases involving Southern Heritage violations.
Respectfully submitted, Allison Schaum Case Manager
There is one thing that matters here and that is whether or not Kirk Lyons will do a better job than his opponent and stand up for Confederate heritage against all its enemies. So far, Kirk has stood up to that challenge and he has my unconditional support.
The SCV as it now stands is not only a neutered laughing-stock, it has become a liability to the struggle to preserve Southern heritage through its compromises, its political correctness, and its fear of controversy.
The SCV cannot maintain its current path. It must adopt more of an activist philosophy. The reason our Confederate heritage is being erased in front of our very eyes is because we're constantly on the defensive against the NAACP, liberals, and their willing accomplices in the media. The SCV cannot effectively win this battle as long as it continues to gather behind closed doors, drink donuts and coffee, and talk about the "glory days". There is too much at stake here and passions are too high to be room for a middle ground. No Quarter!
HATE groups such as the Ku Klux Klan have not misused the "Confederate battle flag" as a banner in the cause of White Supremacy, that dubious honor belongs to the Confederate States of America.
Explicitly, the cause of white supremacy was enshrined in the National Flag of the Confederate States of America at the behest of William T. Thompson, editor of the Savannah Morning News.
In his editorial of April 23, 1863, (republished with approval by the Richmond papers), Mr. Thompson wrote " Our idea is simply to combine the present battle-flag with a pure white standard sheet; ..."
"As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical (sic) of our cause."
Thompson then declared in the April 28th issue that "[s]uch a flag would be a suitable emblem of our young confederacy, and, sustained by the brave strong arms of the South, it would soon take rank among ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world WHITE MAN'S FLAG."
In the May 4th issue of the Savannah Morning News, Mr. Thompson exalted the new flag saying "We are pleased to learn by our dispatch from Richmond that Congress has had the good taste to adopt for the flag of the confederacy the battle-flag on a plain white field,... The flag, as adopted, is precisely the same as that suggested by us a short time since, ... As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism."
I discovered these transcripts in the Thunderbolt, Ga.(Library), Savannah Morning Newspapers Microfiche[Flim Records], on July 13, 1998. The Confederate States of America's cause was white supremacy, the American Civil War between the North and South was not about states' rights or Southern independence. That's the WHATS not the WHYS.The whys (reasons) were White Supremacy and the preservation of slavery.
The Confederate cause was declared by Confederate President Jefferson Davis in his Message to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America, April 29, 1861.
The Confederate President stated that "The labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, ... . With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced. "
In his "Cornerstone Speech" delivered March 21, 1861, Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens stated that "Our new Government is founded ... its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro (sic) is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and moral condition.
This, our newer Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. "(The speech was reported on in the March 22, 1861 edition of the Savannah Republican ).
Article I, Section 9, of the constitution of the confederacy explicitly forbade the Confederate Congress from passing any law "denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves. "
Finally an extract from the Declaration of Causes of secession from the the state of Georgia is hardly ambiguous about the central question of slavery to their cause.
According to the document "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave- holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. ...The party of Lincoln, ... is admitted to be an anti- slavery party. ... anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. ... Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation ... The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, ... the equality of the black and white races, ... were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers. ... The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization."
It is disturbing that there has been an absolute `black out' in reporting by the major media of any ideological bent of conveying these relevant historical facts to the general public in so-called balanced news coverage over the Confederate Flag controversy.
There is a disturbing racist undertone in the major media coverage of the conflict over the "Stars and Bars". That theme finds expression in variations of the major media commentary that flag opponents see the Confederate emblem as a symbol of hate and slavery, while flag supporters say it is an important symbol of the state's heritage and honors those who fought in the Civil War.
Besides the racist exclusion of those "others" who fought in the Civil War, this `balanced' commentary is in fact racially charged for it labels opponents as motivated by infantile passion and emotion, whereas the supporters are guided by reason and are analytical and historical,.
Such commentary does not go on to say the position of the flag opponents is substantiated by the contemporary documents of the period in question and is consistent with the judgment of most credible historians today.
The position of flag supporters is for the most part, based on faith with little or no facts to sustain it.
The problem is that even the most educated of the battle flag defenders arrive to this debate, morally corrupt, spiritually bankrupt, intellectually retarded, while in a total state of denial.
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.