Ground Zero Mosque? Tolerance. Confederate Flag on Private Property? Take It Down!
Ms. Caddell explained to a reporter:
That flag means a lot more to me than anything I can describe to you. … It’s my heritage and it’s my right.
James Patterson, a black man who lives next door, agrees that she has the right, like the critics of the Ground Zero mosque. Also like those critics, he says that exercising that right is “insensitive”:
“I know she has a legal right to do that on her property. But just because it’s legally right doesn’t make it morally right,” said Patterson, who is black.
I wonder how many liberals who think it insensitive and un-American to oppose the Ground Zero mosque are ready to stand in solidarity with Annie Chambers Caddell. I suspect not very many.
By contrast, I suspect most conservatives would say to her what they say to those who insist that the only location they will accept for their mosque is the very spot where it will antagonize the most people. I know I would, even though I grew up happy in a place and time where most people I knew thought “damnyankee” was one word. Why go out of your way to offend your neighbors?
In short, there is nothing inconsistent in our recognizing how important that flag is to her, and tolerating her veneration of it, while suggesting that she restrict its display to the inside of her house, where after all she would see it more often while not riling up her neighbors.
Civility, in short, should have a strong claim on our affections. I believe we can, and should, give it its due, and I believe we can do that without surrendering our rights to every heckler’s veto that comes along.
One would think that 145 years would be enough time to heal the wounds, where the flag of the Confederacy can be tolerated as an historical artifact for those who lost family fighting for states rights, or whatever interpretation of history descendants like Annie Chambers Caddell believe.
The irony of the postmodern transnational multiculturalists (PTMCs) is that they deny the complexity and nuance of historical narratives, and have their own deep intolerances. It is beyond their comprehension that anyone would choose to display the American flag outside their home, a display of patriotic nationalism that offends the PTMCs.
Gotta adjust your frame of reference here, folks. Mohammedanism is fundamentally anti-Christian and anti-Christian/Western/European civilization.
Whatever the Stars and Bars means to you, it’s pretty certain that you’d associate that cause with white Christians. Leftists in the US desire the destruction of Christian religion/civilization and the subjugation of white people. We all heard the sound-bite from the Leftist babe recently, longing for the day when blacks are the majority in this country and we can become a third-world, stone-age sh*t-hole like South Africa. So, the Confederate flag is intolerable to Leftists, as a symbol of white resistance. Mohammedans are the Left’s tactical allies in their war on white people and European religion/culture.
The charter for the mosque explicitly stated that “at no time would the name of Allah be permitted to be soiled through violent act against any other due to their failure to adhere to the Islamic faith”.
The charter for the SC secession explicitly stated that the violation of the compact binding South Carolina as a state was due to slavery. Excerpt from the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
It’s funny to watch befuddled liberals seeing their own self-righteous mantra against conservatives coming back to bite them in their derrieres. Could their chickens be coming home to roost? Hallelujah and Amen.
liberals defend the rights of a white person? lol…thanks for the morning laugh
Too true. After all, as our Attorney General’s appointees said, “We aren’t interested in that stuff. It doesn’t get out the minority vote.”
Only if the white person conforms to liberal rules. If said white person is a Muslim, even better, although in that case the person is no longer white and their “race” is now “Muslim”.
While I get the parallel I think there’s a significant difference between the examples. As best as I can gather from the article, the flag Ms. Caddel is flying is not made from steel and concrete and is not 13 stories tall. When she ultimately passes, I suspect the offensive icon will be taken down, folded and taken away.
Is there a similar option with respect to a 13 story brick and steel “community center”? I also wonder why this community center is being built in an area that isn’t a community area? Yeah, we have the developments along the Hudson but, for the most part, that area of Manhatten is a business district. Do we really think the folks in the financial community will take 5 during their day to visit this center?
Who is really kidding who?
I don’t believe that Ms. Caddell meant her flag to offend and hurt as many people as possible, as the mosque is clearly intended to do. There are many degrees of tolerance apparently. Would Barry go on tv and champion Ms. Caddell’s right to fly her stars and bars? I think not.
Reflexive knee jerk liberals always end up behaving in the most illiberal manner.
While they shrilly opine over the sanctity of rights to the perpetually aggrieved, they have NO such tolerance for others who express unpopular opinions.
It is their oppressive intolerance which renders them a hell of a lot more like fascists, than their liberal bonafides would have us believe.
To wit, the Divider-in-Chief never misses an opportunity to jump into the fray, just as long as Blacks and Muslims are the perceived victims.The rest of the citizenry can go to hell, as far as he is concerned.This is why he is bent on taking away that which most of the rest of the nation craves-freedom to choose which paths they want in life, irrespective of the progressive, fascist putsch.
They will play their hands till the death….
My feeling is that all the symbols of the CSA are and have always been symbols of TREASON!!! That said, displaying them by private citizens is not against the laws of the USA. I think that those states that still fly the Confederate flag or have it incorporated into their state flag should consider the message, that action sends . . . WE ARE AT HEART TRAITORS!!!
I am working to view the Confederate flag as the destruction of two bad ideas. The first is the destruction of the treasonous Confederacy it self. The second is the destruction of slavery, on which the Confederacy stood.
Maybe garbage bags made of the Confederate flag would be commercially viable?
7) Robert
You are historically and intellectually challenged. The Right of the Confederacy was only treasonous in the mind of Abraham Lincoln. Please illustrate where the Constitution says States can not secede. It was in fact Traitor Lincoln that suspended habeas corpus for the duration of the war and arrested or deported most of his opponents.
The Confederacy did not stand on slavery, it stood on the supremacy of the states over the federal government.
Why, given the cost in dollars of the War of Northern Aggression, did not Traitor Lincoln pursue Compensatory Emancipation like other civilized nations of the time? The cost in dollars would have been far less. The answer is quite simple, his interest was in expanded federal government. He was a socialist of the first order.
The Constitution we now live under is a direct out growth of The Article of Confederation, the full title is: The Articles of Confederation and Eternal Union! The Constitution has a specific process for joining the Union. A would be state could not just declare itself part of the Union. The acceptance of a new state was contingent on Congress and the ratification of the existing states. Here it takes just a little thought. If a territory could not declare itself and member of the United States of America, it could not unilaterally declare itself no longer a State. Is that too much for you?
That doesn’t make a damn bit of sense, buddy. Example: I gave quite a bit of information to the banker when I opened my account. To close my account, I just took all my money out.
Want more examples?
Popped in from an alternate universe did you?
What utter drivel.
The Southern Democrats engaged in treason the minute they started levying war against the United States (big surprise, Dems are now, and always have been traitors, when they think it will serve their purposes).
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them…”
So says the Constitution.
No one should be compensated for freeing slaves, because all men are born with the God-given right to freedom.
So says, the holiest of holies, the Declaration of Independence, ratified by all states of the United States, I might add.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Quoted, just in case there are some Dems out there that are a little unclear on the concept. There sure were a ton of them in the 1860s.
The Southern Dems were the scum of the earth and there wasn’t a shred of right in their war against the United States.
We sould have capped the lot of them (the Dem leadership/politicians), once they’d been disarmed. We would have saved a lot of trouble in the decades to come, not to mention the lives of thousands of (mainly) black people murdered by the Southern Dems in the post Civil War period.
So, spare me the Southern revisionist hogwash.
All that being said, you can fly a Confederate flag if you want to, as long as you’re not stirring up a ruckus, I reckon.
Well Robert, apparently, you’ve never read the decision of the courts regarding the Confederacy and treason. The US attempted to try Jefferson Davis for treason, but ended up dropping the charges. No Confederate leader was EVER prosecuted for treason, because to try them for treason would have brought into question whether or not the Constitution allows for the right to secede, a question which Constitutional scholars TO THIS DAY disagree about. Given the further fact that the Confederate States formed their own nation and held it together for several months before their neighbor to the North decided to do anything about the situation, and then attacked the Confederacy (which defended itself), it is fairly obvious that your statements have no merit on the facts.
I submit to you all that another secession IS coming. American states are sick and tired of the Federal government telling them how to run their affairs, suing them for things the Fed itself should be taking care of (Arizona) and generally buggering up everything they get their paws on. This time…the results will be different.
You might want to read a more scholarly piece at; http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/secession-salmon-chase-and-the-treason-trial-of-jefferson-davis/
I include the last point in the article for your enlightenment.
Finally, later that year Chase addressed the constitutionality of unilateral secession, when he authored the Supreme Court’s opinion in Texas v. White.[25] Money quote: “The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.”[26]
The numbers in par-ins are footnotes referring to othe authors.
Apparently you haven’t read any “unrevised history” history books. The true reason the Civil War started was because of the Abomination Laws, a series of laws passed over several years prior to secession. These laws put a huge financial burden on the food-producing South and greatly benefitted the food-consuming North. Sound familiar, small business owners? History is repeating itself to an ironic degree, right down to the series of Obamanation Laws passed over Congress representatives’ will.
The Confederate flag represents a failed attempt to not allow big government to deny Constitutionally-protected States’ rights when the government is passing unfair laws. Slavery was an attractive political rallying cry tacked on after the war began in order to increase Northerners’ support of the most terrible war America has ever fought. “We want to subjugate the South and its bounty to Washington’s greed without giving them fair representation in Congress” would have been a harder excuse to sell for beginning a war that cost more American lives than any other. The onus of this war acurately lies on the government in D.C. at that time. Slavery was always a horrible stain on many countries’ history, but that is not why this war was fought.
In my readings of the causes of the U.S. Civil War I never came across the term, “Abomination Laws.” I have encountered “Tariff of Abominations” which triggered the “Nullification Crisis.” Google and Bing return what I have already read. Could you direct me to a reference a book, a web site, something.
Additionally, as I understand the Pre-Civil War South was dominated by cash crop production, namely King Cotton. What food stuffs what were grown primarily for local consumption. If the South had been feeding the North, it would have been the Union Army that was ill fed but, it was the Confederate Army that was not only poorly clothed but, poorly fed. As early as 1850 Northern farmers were exporting to the world. And, with the invention of the McCormick Harvesting Machine, exports jumped, so much so that during the war, in addition to feeding several armies, exports continued.
Oops–I of course meant “Congressional representatives’ CONSTITUENTS’ will.”
Don’t like the Stars and Bars, gee, to bad, it exist and if you fuss enough, more of us will fly it.
I find it amusing that, of all the slave owning states in this part of the world, haiti is the only other one that had a revolution to free the slaves other then the US under the tyrant of the day.
Gee, a tad bit of patience might have dealt with it quite nicely, but it would not have straightened out those uppity Southerners, they were just to big for there britches, thinking they had rights, they are suppose to bow down to them yankees up north on all things. Slavery was the excuse after the war was started, but then the South did not have much to say about the history books now, did they.
Well presented. One of the greatest sins, and weaknesses, of the Left is its slavish devotion to inflexible ideological doctrine. When in Mr. Obama’s politically formative years he was taught to use Constitutional virtues to cudgel American democracy from within, it was preordained that if an issue such as the Ground Zero Mosque arose he would articulate the absolute sanctity of religious freedom and legality (even though, as is correctly noted, no one is arguing the contrary) to forcefully advance an unpopular “minority” view.
But in characteristic Leftist fashion, the principle of what he is asserting has no portability. The principle cannot logically be extended to comparable circumstances where it comes into conflict with contradictory Leftist premises. It is precisely these logical inconsistencies of Leftist drivel and dogma that have given birth to “political correctness”–the subordination of objective reality in service to rigid ideological conformity.
More and more, it seems, that every move Obama makes, every position he takes, everything he espouses, can be tied to one or another chapter and verse of Rules for Radicals. The man is both a shell and a shill.
Robert,
Good point.
As a white Yankee, I have to agree the Southern Confederacy was simply out and out treason. Plantation owners and business specutlators in the south had urged secession for decades, and planned to expand slavery beyond our boarders into a (dixi conquered?) southern empire, to become a World Power rival of “Yankeedom” and Europe. Many in their leadership were not simply disgruntled citizens, but former Servants of the Republic, and high ranking ones at that. That is Treason.
It was SOLD to the local population as a States Rights issue, but it was just greed, plain and simple. I do not like Obama, and I did not like Clinton, but I would never advocate the disolution of the NATION over an election of a President I despised, as South Carolina felt was called for after Lincoln won the White House in 1860.
But we are indeed a good and forgiving people, established with the best of intentions, and continuously strive to BE the good fair and free people we claim to be. We do not honor the Treason, instead, we honor OUR NATION for having had the struggle. We honor the bravery and daring of an underdog Confederate Army only because it was THEY who forced us to confront, with blood and grief, the original sin of our beginning. There was to be no easy way out….freedom is not free….and we’ve proved that, together, Blue and Gray.
This is the razor thin margin of reverence I have for the Confederate flag . We should not ignore it or forbid its display, because we need to remember the cost, the agony, of what freedom requires us to do. In that sense, it is a revered AMERICAN symbol
And remember this as well, my southern brethren…But for the magnanamous nature of OUR COUNTRY trying to live up to its dream, every officer in the Southern Armies above the rank of Captain would have been executed, along with that dispicable rat-bastard Jefferson Davis. An exponentially “greater traitor” than Arnold.
That fact alone sets THIS NATION apart.
I am never offended by the sight of a Confederate flag, because it reminds me that WE (all of us) won the war.
More to the point, how about a ground zero “cross burning” by members of the Universal Life Church dressed in white sheets (as apposed to, say, Palestinians dressed in black hoods)? Distinct from flag burnings, I believe the state of the law is currently that “cross burnings” are considered contemporary acts of historical criminal intimidation, directed at a “protected class” and thus criminalizing the behavior passes constitutional muster. Just because the Mosque’s promoters are not currently wearing black hoods doesn’t mean the same principle should not apply to a ground zero Mosque.
wow root…so very elegantly said….you gave me chill bumps….:)
Surely you jest. Root is another ignorant victim of revisionist history. Look up the Abomination Laws. They were passed in the decade before the war began.
ptbw
“But we are indeed a good and forgiving people, established with the best of intentions, and continuously strive to BE the good fair and free people we claim to be. We do not honor the Treason, instead, we honor OUR NATION for having had the struggle. We honor the bravery and daring of an underdog Confederate Army only because it was THEY who forced us to confront, with blood and grief, the original sin of our beginning. There was to be no easy way out….freedom is not free….and we’ve proved that, together, Blue and Gray.”
this is not “revisionist history”..this is pride in our nation as americans…united as a people
Three Words:
Slavery
Sedition
Sumpter
No revision needed.
Your tortured explanations and administrative technocrat excuses for human bondage in a “free” country dont cut the mustard where it matters.
You are like an abortion apologist, long on theory, explanation, precident…but the tiny bits of human flesh and bone that go in the garbage cans somehow tells me of another, more relavent truth to the story…
Save your wind…
interesting bunch of hate filled yankees. Shilling for lincoln, the murderous tyrant who rewrote the rules and we moved from a Republic to an empire. Right of secession, what do you think?
You folks wrote the history books of that era and you keep trying to rewrite the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Kind of a putz brained bunch and obama is the ultimate example of your over all stupidity, incompetence and arrogance.
I find it all rather amusing, you have for ever and a day walked all over the blacks, your do gooderism has turned them into the loosers they are today, losers much as you yankess are. No one is touting up the north for their accomplishments, perhaps their ability to screw up everything to the max, but not their accomplishments.
Have a nice day.
Where? Google and Bing return no information Abomination Laws. Direct me to a source.
“Civility [ ] should have a strong claim on our affections. I believe we can [ ] give it its due, and I believe we can do that without surrendering our rights to every heckler’s veto that comes along.”
I too would like to believe that too – but what happens when an invading culture which holds itself separate from our own, as Islam does, comes and insists on imposing its ban on “insulting Islam” on everything from meat production to history lessons in our schools?
The horrible part about letting Islam to flourish in America means that if Muslims ever were to back down on this single Ground Zero Mosque, then they’d DEMAND that we back down in every regard to our free speech rights viz. the problems with Islam.
It seems that we cannot demand decency from Muslims, without, in exchange, surrendering huge swaths of our hard won freedoms in exchange — and in promising not to “offend” them at every turn, receive no surety from Muslims that there will not be more demands for us to surrender lest we “offend” them about meat, or clothing, or open gayness, or Christmas carols, or the mere act of resisting their hideous religion.
While we await their reciprocation, and surrender our freedoms without anything in exchange, we are berated by Muslims for an ever growing list of grievances with no end. Therefore, I utterly repudiate the idea that we should give Islam ANY due in its endless demands for accommodation from us. Muslims view concessions to Islam and Muslim sensibilities as victories for Islam, and signs that we are weak before Allah. Muslims are only encouraged to demand more from us when we concede anything. In short, whereas we have been raised to expect reciprocity and tolerance in exchange when exhibiting tolerance, Muslims culturally view such tolerance as a green light to push further to subjugate the retreating infidel.
Your whole system of reciprocity is a catastrophic mistake if one party refuses to play by the rules. The bleeding hearts and ignorant fools who tolerate Islam on our soil only abet our Muslim enemy in his efforts to subvert everything we hold dear.
I totally agree with #13. I don’t get it why people still call Islam a religion when it permeates all levels of Muslim life. Not to mention the Mosque represents Sharia law. A form of slavery. Serious misogyny. It’s time to get it across to people that Islam is NOT a religion. A REAL religion let’s it’s members leave without threat of death or death itself. A REAL religion does not have as tenets in it’s alleged holy book commands to kill unbeleivers. It’s time to get real. It’s time to Just Say No to ANY Islamic hijacking of our Constitution or laws.
Well-said. The mere fact that ALL non-Muslims are called “infidels” is all we need to know. It is indeed a hideous religion that victimizes its own followers who had the bad luck to be born in that part of the world.
I live near a residential neighborhood that includes a Presbyterian church. The Presbyterians would like to add additional parking on several lots they own next to the church. They have now been to more planning commission and city council meetings than I can count, without success. Apparently there are zoning laws that require planning permission to add parking, even on church-owned property, and the fact that the neighbors object is being taken into account. I can’t figure out why Presbyterians can’t build parking lots in an ordinary neighborhood without city permission, while Moslems can build a giant mosque/community center/whatever next to Ground Zero and everyone continually says they have a legal and constitutional right to do so, even if it’s understood by most to be an affront to common decency. Does NYC not have zoning rules? Or should our local Presbyterians be looking for the paragraph in the Constitution that says a religious group can build whatever it wants, wherever it wants, zoning be damned?
The Confederate Flag was accepted after the Civil War as the flag of the Confederate States. It has been flown over the Capitol buildings of most of the Confederate States, and has not been condemned by any acts of Congress since these States were accepted into the Union.
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action gave power to people that want to divide and promote their brand of hatred.
If Cubans can fly their country flag, A COMMUNIST FLAG; Muslims fly their Islamic flag; Venezuelans their country flag, There is NO excuse the Confederate Flag cannot be flown over any venue. There were many slaves that wanted to remain on their plantations after the War, because they were treated so well by their masters. Their history has not been completely purged from U.S. History, as yet.
Insensitivity is when someone offends my intelligence; Which happens many times during the course of any day. Since this is ‘insensitive’, can I have the offending entity shut down? Where’s the ‘justice’?
CBS’s 60 Minutes had a segment on the Ground Zero Mosque site. The segment showed that the basement of the building is presently used for prayers by the Muslims in the area.
What’s the difference if they tear down the Burlington Coat Factory building on the site now and replace it with a new building if Muslims already pray there? Do we want to leave decaying buildings in the vicinity of Ground Zero?
Do you want to leave DECAYING grave markers in the local cemetery? Your relatives are suspect!
“Shea” and others, please don’t hold the rantings of “Robert,” Root83″ and their kind against them. They’re simply regurgitating the propaganda they were force-fed in public school and the MSM. Heck, I believed it most of my life too, until I did the research and realized how grossly I’d been deceived.
Anyone thinking the Constitution set up a political Roach Motel (states check in, but they can’t check out) ignores both the 10th Amendment and the fact that several northern states threatened secession on numerous occasions, over issues such as the War of 1812 and the admission of Texas. No one questioned their right to do so. That the same respect for that right not granted the South is another textbook example of TYH (Typical Yankee Hypocrisy), which is closely related to TYA (Typical Yankee Arrogance). Charles Adams sets the record straight in this excellent book.
The Civil War was fought to free slaves? Thanks for the laugh. When the war started there were more slave states in the USA (eight) than the CSA (seven). Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia withdrew as the final act of refusal to supply troops for an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. The slave states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware remained in the USA, and Lincoln’s craftily worded “Emancipation Proclamation” did not apply to them.
Back in 1999 William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation wrote an excellent “what if” essay regarding the positive turn history would have taken had the South won the war (or if it had never been fought). (You can read it here; scroll down about halfway.) My only disagreement with Mr. Lind is on race relations. The back-to-Africa movement, in progress since the Monroe administration, would have accelerated once slavery ended in both nations. Therefore, “race relations” would be irrelevant today as very few blacks would still be here — and it’s a lead-pipe cinch BHO would not be president.
BOOOOYYAH! T.K.O.!!
John Caldwell Calhoun presented the case well. The federal government is born out of a contract signed by the states. The entity thus created was not a signatory of the original contract. The masters are the states, the federal government is only a servant and a servant cannot be the sole arbiter among his masters.
Sorry, but you got that Backwards…
We declared ourselves a Nation in 1776….
The “UNITED states”, not the “STATES united”, is who we are, and have been, from Day One.
Inalienable rights, and thus all of the Bill Of Rights, applies to all of us FIRST, as AMERICANS, regardless of what any of the states want to say.
Primary loyalty is to (what) the Nation (is supposed to be)
Gets hairy when the fed is so arrogant and out of control, but the Primacy remains…as a state resident, I could give a hoot if the Carolina’s or Dakota’s decide to merge into one state, or 4, so as long as theyre still part of the Nation.
If you dont think the Civil War was caused BY and fought OVER the idea of slavery, you are deluding yourself.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist, or UFO believer, with your insignificant factoids of straining relevance. Read some actual history someday. Read some diaries or memoirs of people of the era. Find some old newspapers, read the editorials, See what they said about the burning tensions of the day.
I’ve spent 40+ years studying American History, I myself am a veteran, and I have family who served in the military going back to BOTH sides of the FRENCH AND INDIAN war. The Civil War is “recent history” to me, I’m thoroughly familiar with the period, one thing and one thing ONLY is CENTRAL to the time….
No OTHER issue inflamed passions higher than the idea that we were FREE PEOPLE with rights that should never be trampled, yet could still allow slavery.
Kansas and Missouri were bleeding with partisan warfare for TEN YEARS before before Sumpter….what on earth do YOU THINK these Americans were willing to kill each other over? Zoning ordinances? Building permits?
I will Pay Pal you some money with which you can BUY a clue.
They were killing each other over the most fundamental moral concept imaginable….what direction our country would head in….an arrogant southern aristocracy so full of piss and vinegar over their own precious “state rights” while enslaving OTHER men, was a form of hypocrisy that some people just could not swallow. Others thought it was natural order of civilization and man, and would defend it to their death.
Thus was the fault line at which all other issue fell to one side or the other. The Elephant in the room, son. Be serious, open your eyes. Stop with the pesky minutia card tricks, and specious leagalese, and gain some PERSPECTIVE.
Some people would kill to defend and even advance slavery in AMerica, while others would fight and die to prevent what they believed was a crime of biblical proportion from staining the soul of a nation. All this was happening way before Lincoln was President. Its where all the political tension from the founding till Fort Sumpter originated from. “States Rights” is a cover story, the “official” excuse, a lie as naked and disingenuous as the Muslims claiming the Ground Zero Mosque is not a victory symbol. The truth is too ugly to admit so, out come the lawyers.
And while it may be true that some states THREATENED secession, for political posturing or concessions prior to the Civil War, none ever actually FIRED upon Federal Troops, at a Federal Fort….A fort that was, by the way, erected to carry out the agreed upon, principal, Constitutionally Specified role of the Federal Government….Namely providing for the common defense. We WERE actually invaded by the British once before, you might recall our capitol was BURNED?
Manning forts in harbors was therefore a common, necessary task of any National Army, nothing outrageous or provocative about it. You dont just up and command them to leave one day, and then fire on them, because you dont agree with who was elected in November. That would be unreasonable, but “reason” is not a skill set you people are known for.
We compromised with you inbred red-necks once before, back when you were willing to let the precious idea of our Free Nation die, stillborn, after the Revolution. We allowed our founding document to be stained with your greed, your arrogance, and your inflated sense of “southern honor” and codified slavery.
For you, for your fatal, arrogant pride, every part of the Constitution is now forever suspect, forever under assault by other miscreants not unlike you, who seek to enslave us still. They point to YOUR twisted belief that Slavery is tolerable in a free land, as proof of the “imperfection” of the Constitution, and thus justify a perpetual need for its “adjustment” , always at our peril.
Any reasonable person would have understood the wrong ,and simply, graciously, allowed it to die out. But you wanted to EXPAND it. And you were willing to sacrifice the Nation to have your way.
Any other nation on this earth would have executed with a vengeance, the remaining leadership and soldiery of such treason following a civil war. Reprisals, bloodbath, purges and prisons and gallows SHOULD have been your fate, indeed WOULD have been your fate anywhere else, especially after the President himself was Assassinated by sympathizers of your cause.
But we are better than you. We care about the future, and were willing to forgive unforgivable sedition and Assassination, in order to move forward again.
Tell me where else in history, has such love of COUNTRY over SELF SERVANCE, ever been seen?
Certainly not ever, in the Southern Confederacy.
You two need a beer summit; I’ll moderate and serve the beer.
Excellent response.
this was an error and I retract it.
Quote:
The Civil War was fought to free slaves? Thanks for the laugh. When the war started there were more slave states in the USA (eight) than the CSA (seven).
end quote.
I hate to say it, but the number of states is irrelevant to political power in Congress.
The thing concerning the South was population–The North was becoming more populous, and so their representation was becoming greater. If the majority are anti-slavery, and will not tolerate slavery in the territories, then there would be trouble. Abraham Lincoln was a moderate concerning slavery, but a hardline anti-slavery candidate when it came to slavery in the territories. The South sensed that they were being surrounded. They were correct.
Most of our slave owners, were rich northern owners that did see or live around the brutality of what some slaves had to endure. The owner of the worst plantation as far as brutality, I believed in Pa., so he did not have to see how bad one human can treat another. To him the slave were like anything else he owned and if you do not see the brutality, you do not think about, all he cared about was profit and losses`s. Sounds a lot like today except you get paid a little more for your life!
Sir if you think the Civil War was fought so the slaves could be free. Then you believe in all this PC bull, that the progressives have been teaching in our schools. If you believe this PC crap, then there is no reasoning with you over this subject. How many slaves fought for the South? The Civil War was fought over two different ways to govern. The South wanted to live under their own laws not the North`s laws, slavery was just a part of that war. If you truly want to face the facts about the Civil War, it is still not over, now we have affirmative action and welfare, which both just hold people back from really reaching their potential by not holding them up to equal standards and giving them a place to live and eat. A place where most people would not raise their own kids. Oh yes and our own benevolent government uses drugs to control certain people. Okay you can laugh at this point but it is true. Look at Planned Parent Hood, who started it and why. It was started by a white women, who basically wanted to control the births of black babies and it is still going strong today. There are more black babies percapita aborted in this country and now Africa, because of Obama than ever before. So how far off the plantation are we? It is not a race thing but a class thing, always was and will be!
Talking about the Confederate flag reminded me of something. Years ago, in South Carolina we stopped and checked out this historical spot at Old 96.There’s a super old cemetery with headstones of those who fought in the Revolutionary War. Truly awe inspiring. Is that going to be next? The damn stealth Jihadi’s going after old historic war sites/cemeteries and build an ugly mosque? The symbol of slavery, misogyny, fascism and barbarity? I truly do NOT understand anyone cuddling up to such a hideous belief system. Maybe there should be a type of safe house set up here and there around the country for those who want to leave Islam but are scared to death literally of what they face leaving Islam. To me, it’s no different than leaving a horrifically abusive partner and needing something kin to that fed program for hiding people legally.
Anyone who uses the excuse that the Confederate Flag, symbolizes slavery is trying to use race to get what they want. A lot of good people died under that flag that were not all slave owners. The first black slave owner, to the best of my checking was another black man, not a white man. The blacks say they deserve restitution from whites for making them slaves. The truth is that if the blacks want restitution for being slaves, you have to go back to Africa where the black man sold his brothers to white men for money. Still to this day slavery is very prevalent in Africa and a booming business. To compare the flying of a Confederate Flag to Islamic, Sharia Law is like trying to compare apples to oranges. When was the last time you saw someone attacking the US under the Confederate Flag?
So once a “state” joins the union it can never leave ?
That’s like a marriage which can never be dissolved.
I couldn’t agree more with your view on the mosque and flag. I wrote about it as well last week. It saddens me that so few people see how closely these two instances are related. American’s can’t seem to see past their own special interests.
‘I wonder how many liberals who think it insensitive and un-American to oppose the Ground Zero mosque are ready to stand in solidarity with Annie Chambers Caddell. I suspect not very many.’
I’m one of those liberals who would not stand in solidarity with Ms. Caddell. Nor wold I oppose her right to fly the flag, nor rant and rave around her house, nor draw erroneous conclusions about other people’s feelings on this matter.
We remain a nation of laws–which includes respecting (if not agreeing) people’s rights to their own opinions.