Posted on 12/13/2002 4:04:26 PM PST by stainlessbanner
The manager of a Mobile mall has evicted a merchant selling clothing with Confederate battle flag designs, citing complaints from people angered by the merchandise.
The merchant, Camo Unlimited, opened a kiosk in Colonial Mall Bel Air just after Thanksgiving. The Blountsville-based company sells Dixie Outfitters clothing at the Mobile mall and at other malls throughout the Southeast, owner Toby Smith said.
Dixie Outfitters offers more than 600 designs with themes such as hunting, trucks and dogs, all including the stars and bars of the Confederate battle flag. The clothing line's "Legends of the Confederacy" series features generals and other leaders of the Confederacy.
Smith said that soon after he opened the kiosk, employees of another store at the mall complained. Soon afterward, the mall's management told him to clear out by Sunday.
Tim Nolan, the mall's general manager, said he heard from several people who indicated the store could spur a boycott of the mall.
"May I remind you that blacks and other minorities constitute a major portion of consumers who patronize Colonial Bel Air Mall," chapter president Lettie Malone wrote in a Dec. 5 letter to Nolan.
"They should not be embarrassed or made to feel uncomfortable by those who are still fighting and trying to revive a war that never should have been a part of our civilized society."
The state president of the NAACP, the Rev. R.L. Shanklin, said the group never had plans for a boycott, and that he would have to approve any boycott carried out by the organization.
Nevertheless, Nolan said the mall was in an "emotionally charged controversy that we didn't want to be in the middle of."
"There was going to be no easy decision," he told the Mobile Register. "Certainly customers are disappointed that we took them out. Customers would have been disappointed had we left them in."
Asked whether he thought his clothing was offensive, Dixie Outfitters owner Dewey Barber said, "We certainly don't put any designs out there that we feel are offensive to anyone."
Dixie Outfitters' Web site has links and news stories about the Battle Flag, and in a section called "Our Mission" it states:
"The truth about the Confederate Flag is that it has nothing to do with racism or hate. The Civil War was not fought over slavery or racism. We at Dixie Outfitters are trying to tell the real truth via our art and products in regards to the Confederate Flag."
Ben George, head of a local Sons of Confederate Veterans camp, said he was considering a protest against the eviction.
More fool you if you believe anything stand waite posts without doing any research on your own. But then that would be work, wouldn't it? Can't have you doing any of that, now can we?
By any stretch of the imagination, our founding fathers intent was to limit the "coercive power" of government.
None of them said that.
They said the opposite, and plainly.
"In order, therefore, to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for common defense and to secure the blessings of liberty, those people, among whom were the people of Georgia, ordained and established the present constitution. By that constitution, legislative power is vested, executive power is vested, judicial power is vested...We may then infer, that the people of the United States intended to bind the several states, by the legislative power of the national government...
Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, wil be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted, for such purposes, a national government complete in all its parts, with powers legislative, executive and judiiciary, ad in all those powers extending over the whole nation. "
John Jay, first Chief Justice, 1793:
"It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States," 'do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a state to govern themeselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is liekwise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national Government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc."
--Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793
Chief Justice John Marshall:
"The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, as far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done by confining their choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of Congress to adopt any which might be approprate, and which were conducive to the end...to have prescribed the means by which the government, should, in all future times, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code...To have declared, that the best means shal not be used, but those alone, without which the power given would be nugatory...if we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of the government, we shall find it so pernicious in its operation that we shall be compelled to discard it..."
From McCullough v. Maryland, quoted in "American Constittutional Law" A.T. Mason, et al. ed. 1983 p. 165
As to Virginia:
"The mischievous consequences of the construction contended for on the part of Virginia, are also entitled to great consideration. It would prostrate, it has been said, the government and its laws at the feet of every state in the Union. And would this not be the effect? What power of the government could be executed by its own means, in any states disposed to resist its execution by a course of legislation?...each member will possess a veto on the will of the whole...there is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our constitution was formed; nothing in the history of the times, which justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the states was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legislative measures of the Union..."
ibid, p. 169-70
And James Madison: "The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact had always been understood to exclude such an interpretation." (Remarks to the Constitutional Convention, July 23, 1787).
And:
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, then the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of --98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created...."
(James Madison, Writings; Rakove, Jack N., editor; The Library of America; 1999; p. 862)
In March, 1833, he wrote to William Cabell Rives as follows:
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hands of a soldier without a sword in it.
The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdrasw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a state, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst. (sic) their bretheren of other States, not to expose them, to the dangers of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtrude it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!"
(ibid; pp. 864, 865)
The record supports me, not you.
You won't quote the record, because none of the men who attended the Constitutional Convention believed what you ascribe to the people of the day.
You are pushing myth -- myth, and lies.
Walt
Wlat, your facts are degenerating. Slavery was protected by the United States Constitution and the Emancipation Proclomation.
It's amazing how the neo-rebs will hold up the slave power as comprising perfect Christian gentlemen, and then they will tell any kind of lie.
Can you quote a single person from the ACW era who called the EP "protection" for slavery?
Further, the United States permitted slavery, it was not built on slavery. It was opposition to slavery -- by Lincoln and many others -- that made the slave power attempt to duck out of the national union.
Walt
The 14th amendment is now used to trash that.
Had the slave power not been so dead set on keeping other men in chains when the tide of world history was rapidly ebbing in support of such, there would be no 14th amendment as written.
Walt
"Gentle stranger, drop a tear,
The C.S.A. lies buried here:
in Youth it lived and propered well,
But like Lucifer it fell:
Its body here, its soul in -- well
E'en if I knew I wouldn't tell.
Rest C.S.A. from every strife,
Your death is better than Your life:
And this one line shall grace your grave --
Your death gave freedom to the slave."
I think this statement, more than any other I have ever read by Mr. Whiskey PP, show the depth of his denial and his phobia of all things Southern.
Whiskey PP wants it both ways. First, the South is an intrical part of the Union that can not be separated from said Union. But then, supposedly the cornerstone of the South, which became the CSA, is slavery but not the North. And yet, According to PP, the South is inseparable from the North, ergo, that would make slavery a cornerstone of the Union -- at least before the war. I hate it when people arbitrarily flipflop from one side of the fence to the other depending on which way they need to make an argument. It is so intellectually lazy.
Indeed they were. Because of their awareness of this weakness in government, the Bill of Rights came to be.
The Bill of Rights clearly weakens the central government, not strengthens it.
"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."
George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786
The framers, reluctantly in many cases, clearly wanted to curb the power of the states and make them subservient to the national government.
"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existance. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds [at the constitutional convention] led each State in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude...the constitution, which we now present, is the result of of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculularity of our political situation rendered indispensible."
George Washington to the Continental Congress September 17, 1787
It's so bizarre that the neo-rebs will get all misty about their honorable forebears, and then tell any kind of lie.
Walt
Actually many of us have called for the spineless one to grow a spine and/or step down for years. But for this???? If anything, I don't think he needed to apologize for anything - Sen. Thurmond's/Lott's positions also include limited government, less federal control, less pork, less taxes etc - things that many still agree with. We do have a 1st Amendment - and if it protects the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakahn and Byrd, it should cover Lott as well.
And on top of it, now the are attacking Confederates, and every person that honors their Confederate ancestors. The Confederacy never sought to invade Washington and overthrow the US government, they simply exercised the same rights they had previously exercised in 1776 & 1787.
In post #192, stand watie wrote "not relevant. as yet we are NOT shooting at the damnyankees!" I fail to see how that is advocating gun violence.
"damnyankees" are not all "Yankees", they are those that have an abiding hatred for all thing Southern, and seek to see our history, heritage and culture wiped off the face of the earth.
I think this statement, more than any other I have ever read by Mr. Whiskey PP, show the depth of his denial and his phobia of all things Southern.
Just found this:
"Governor Randolph of Virginia was originally opposed to the plan of the government laid out in the new constitution and even sought a new convention. But, in the end, because he believed that there was only one issue, Union or no Union, he said, "I will assent to the lopping off of this limb (raising an arm) before I assent to the dissolution of the Union."
From the ratification debates in New York:
"As, on the one hand, sir, our situation admits of a union, so, on the other, our distresses point out its necessity. I will not, at this time, touch on the declining state of our commerce; nor will I remind you of our national bankruptcy, of the effect it has upon our public measures, and the private misery that it causes; nor will I wound your feelings by a recapitulation of the insults we daily receive from nations whose injuries we are compelled to repay by the advantages of our commerce. These topics have been frequently touched; they are in every man's mind; they lie heavy at every patriot's heart. They have induced states, the most independent in their situation, to unite in their endeavors to remove them; they operate with peculiar force on us. Permit me, however, to make some observations, drawn from our particular situation, and which will show, in the clearest light, that our existence, as a state, depends on a strong and efficient federal government...He observed, that wealth excited envy, stimulated avarice, and invited invasions; that, if the Union was dissolved, we could only be protected by our domestic force. He then urged the incapacity of the state to defend itself, from the detached situation of its ports, remarking particularly upon that of Staten Island and Long Island; their vicinity to states, which, in case of a disunion, must be considered as independent, and perhaps unfriendly powers. He turned the attention of the committee to the north-east, where he showed Vermont ready to avail itself of our weakness, speaking of the people of that state, as a brave and hardy body of men, that we had neither the spirit to subdue, nor, what be more strongly recommended, the magnanimity to yield to. On the north-west, he pointed to the British posts, and hostile tribes of savages. He showed that, in case of domestic war, Hudson River, that great source of our wealth, would also be that of our weakness, by the intersection of the state, and the difficulty we should find in bringing one part to support the other...
He observed, that wealth excited envy, stimulated avarice, and invited invasions; that, if the Union was dissolved, we could only be protected by our domestic force. He then urged the incapacity of the state to defend itself, from the detached situation of its ports, remarking particularly upon that of Staten Island and Long Island; their vicinity to states, which, in case of a disunion, must be considered as independent, and perhaps unfriendly powers. He turned the attention of the committee to the north-east, where he showed Vermont ready to avail itself of our weakness, speaking of the people of that state, as a brave and hardy body of men, that we had neither the spirit to subdue, nor, what be more strongly recommended, the magnanimity to yield to....
He pointed to the British possessions in the limits of this state, held in defiance of the most solemn treaties, and contempt of our government, as proof of its incompetency to defend our rights against foreign powers....
From these observations he deduced, first, that the powers which were, by common consent, intended to be vested in the federal head, had either been found deficient, or rendered useless by the impossibility of carrying them into execution, on the principle of a league of states totally separate and independent;...
--Robert R. Livingston,
IN CONVENTION, POUGHKEEPSIE, June 17, 1788
The people of the day clearly recognized the weakness of the Articles and wanted something stronger.
Nullifcation and secession were concepts made from whole cloth by later generations.
Walt
Quote them.
"Ellsworth also served on the Committee of Five that prepared the first draft of the Constitution. Ellsworth favored the three-fifths compromise on the enumeration of slaves but opposed the abolition of the foreign slave trade. Though he left the convention near the end of August and did not sign the final document, he urged its adoption upon his return to Connecticut and wrote the Letters of a Landholder to promote its ratification.
The next year, Delaware sent [ John] Dickinson to the Constitutional Convention. He missed a number of sessions and left early because of illness, but he made worthwhile contributions, including service on the Committee on Postponed Matters. Although he resented the forcefulness of Madison and the other nationalists, he helped engineer the Great Compromise and wrote public letters supporting constitutional ratification. Because of his premature departure from the convention, he did not actually sign the Constitution but authorized his friend and fellow-delegate George Read to do so for him.
[James] McHenry [of Maryland] missed many of the proceedings at the Philadelphia convention, in part because of the illness of his brother, and played an insubstantial part in the debates when he was present. He did, however, maintain a private journal that has been useful to posterity. He campaigned strenuously for the Constitution in Maryland and attended the state ratifying convention.
[Charles Cotesworth ]Pinckney [of South Carolina] was one of the leaders at the Constitutional Convention. Present at all the sessions, he strongly advocated a powerful national government. His proposal that senators should serve without pay was not adopted, but he exerted influence in such matters as the power of the Senate to ratify treaties and the compromise that was reached concerning abolition of the international slave trade. After the convention, he defended the Constitution in South Carolina.
[Charles (cousin of Charles C.] Pinckney's role in the Constitutional Convention is controversial. Although one of the youngest delegates, he later claimed to have been the most influential one and contended he had submitted a draft that was the basis of the final Constitution. Most historians have rejected this assertion. They do, however, recognize that he ranked among the leaders. He attended full time, spoke often and effectively, and contributed immensely to the final draft and to the resolution of problems that arose during the debates. He also worked for ratification in South Carolina (1788). That same year, he married Mary Eleanor Laurens, daughter of a wealthy and politically powerful South Carolina merchant; she was to bear at least three children.
The next year, [Pierce ] Butler won election to both the Continental Congress (1787-88) and the Constitutional Convention. In the latter assembly, he was an outspoken nationalist who attended practically every session and was a key spokesman for the Madison-Wilson caucus. Butler also supported the interests of southern slaveholders. He served on the Committee on Postponed Matters.
On his return to South Carolina Butler defended the Constitution but did not participate in the ratifying convention. Service in the U.S. Senate (1789-96) followed. Although nominally a Federalist, he often crossed party lines. He supported Hamilton's fiscal program but opposed Jay's Treaty and Federalist judiciary and tariff measures."
Walt
You should need one to cross the Rio Grande, too.
-archy-/-
"The 14th amendment is now used to trash that."
Which was ramrodded through by the puppet state governments filled with Yankee sycophants (like yourself) and the Northern states. However the point here is that the Constitution was a compact of sovereign and independent states who never gave up their sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution and the Founders intended that is should be that way! Up until 1865 every State was a sovereign entity, who were supposed to band together for the common good in case of a foreign invasion or war. Otherwise they were individual entities! But the ability for a section of states (or the Federal Government) to run roughshod over any other state was never intended BY THE FOUNDERS! Lincoln violated all of this with his war of aggression. And if our beliefs are set down in the cornerstone of our American ideology (the Declaration of Independence) ... which they are ... then Lincoln and his Yankee henchmen trashed that ideology in 1865 when they forcibly kept the Southern States in the Union. Liberty, and State sovereignty were no more, we all became slaves of the Federal Government.
Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves ... he said so himself. But as a politician he was a consummate actor, and in the best traditions of Nero ... fiddled in Washington while the South was burned.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Name one of the framers that said that.
Walt
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.