See other National News Articles
Title: FREE SPEECH HATERS PISSING THEIR PANTS - FLORIDA - Thousands ride in support of Confederate flag at Marion County complex
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.ocala.com/article/20150712/ARTICLES/150719928?tc=cr
Published: Jul 12, 2015
Author: By Kristine Crane
Post Date: 2015-07-12 23:36:41 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: CONFEDERATE, CONFEDERATE FLAG, FIRST AMENDMENT, FREE SPEECH
Views: 658
Comments: 102
An estimated 2,000 vehicles, mostly motorcycles and trucks adorned with Rebel flags, took part in a rally and ride Sunday afternoon in support of keeping a Confederate flag flying in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex in Ocala. The event was organized by David Stone, of Ocala, and was called the Florida Southern Pride Ride. Police officials estimated participation at a couple thousand vehicles. The ride started about 1 p.m., and by 1:30 p.m. could be seen winding its way through Ocala. Participants were wearing shirts that said “heritage not hate” and talked of defending a way of life rooted in Southern traditions. Danny Hart, of Dunnellon, had two Confederate flags and the American flag in the back of his truck. He pointed out that the U.S. flag was flying higher and said that he had come to participate in the ride to “defend freedom.” Another ride participant, Rick Hart, said, “It's a history thing. The flag is also a military flag. It's not a race symbol.” Phil Walters, a member of the Confederate Sons of America, felt compelled to attend to defend history against what he calls “intellectual dishonesty.” Walters said the NAACP's 1991 resolution “abhorring the Confederate Battle Flag” has set the tone for conflict and hatred. “According to the U.S. Congress, Confederate veterans are war veterans,” said Walters, whose branch of the Sons is named for Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish secretary of state under Confederate President Jefferson Davis. “The South was fighting for states' rights, and the Northern slaves were freed after Southern slaves. Slavery is a guilt across the human race.” A replica of the General Lee from the 1979-85 “The Dukes of Hazard” TV show led the way during the ride, followed by motorcycles and then pickup trucks. The ride was expected to be 17 miles total and loop back to parking lots north of the city on North U.S. 441. Ocala Police Department Sgt. Erica Hay said the ride was rerouted away from the Northwoods neighborhood after some residents threatened to shoot into the procession. The ride was organized to support the Marion County Commission's decision Tuesday to return the Confederate flag to a historical display in front of the McPherson Governmental Complex. The flag had been removed after a massacre at an African-American church in Charleston. The suspected shooter is a white supremacist who was photographed with Confederate flags. Two small protests were held last week at the county complex in opposition to the Confederate flag — which many see as a symbol of racial hatred. On Sunday, a few black people participated in the ride. One of them, Renee Gore, 34, of Dunnellon, said that to her the flag means “heritage, love and family.” Another black person, Dwayne Webb, 23, of Ocala, said he came specifically “to show people (the flag) is not about prejudice and hate.” For Webb, the flag represents “good living, respect, and honesty,” things that he associates with the South. Webb participated in the ride with his friends, also in their twenties. “I got goose-bumps (during the ride),” said Mike Ponticelli, 29, also of Ocala. They were hanging out in a parking lot with several of the other participants after the ride's conclusion. “We were standing up for what we believe in: manners and common courtesy towards all people, no matter who you are,” Ponticelli said. “It's a positive movement,” Webb added. A handful of people who view the flag as a sign of disrespect also showed up at the ride, holding signs that explained why they are against the flag flying in front of a governmental building. Laila Abdelaziz, 23, who came to the rally from Tampa, held a sign with a quote from one of the flag's defenders in the 1860s, whose defense of the symbol was rooted in white supremacy. “What if your heritage is rooted in hate?” Abdelaziz said. “You have to confront that.” Abdelaziz, who was born in Palestine and came to the U.S. with her parents as a child, said she is very familiar with dynamics of hatred. “I know what hatred does to people,” she said. “America has to confront the fact that someone younger than me killed people out of hatred.” Abdelaziz said she also came to protest the ride to speak for another part of Ocala, where her parents live and she also lived for some time. “This (ride) does not represent all of Ocala,” Abdelaziz said. In the aftermath of the Charleston killings, too much emphasis has been placed on the flag, she added. “Dylann Roof held the flag in one hand, and a gun in the other. We've heard more about the flag than the gun control problem in America.” On Sunday evening, Awake Marion, in conjunction with the NAACP, held a meeting at the Second Bethlehem Baptist Theological Seminary in Ocala. About 75 people attended the meeting, where they discussed how to express their disagreement with the County Commission's decision to raise the Confederate flag. Draft copies of a letter to the Board of County Commissioners were handed out. The organizers also announced that a peaceful sit-in to protest the flag will take place Wednesday at 9 a.m. at the south end of the McPherson Governmental Complex. The sit-in is being sponsored by Brown Memorial Funeral Home. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 95.
#9. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
There was no confederacy...there was mass treason that was quelled.
--Perfecting Obscurity Since 1958... ========================================================== war, are you aware that Abraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)? He was unsuccessful. Pound sand.
Prior to the war, Lincoln was a supporter of the Corwin amendment as it was consistent with his belief that slave states should maintain self- determination. Lincoln was wholly opposed to the expansion of slavery in to new territories. This was rendered moot when the South committed treason.
Is the Union perpetual through the rest of time regardless of what percentage of the people still want it?
The Union has a mechanism for dissolution...the constitutional amendment...
I can see it now -- "The Amendment to let the Southern states leave the Union has been passed. Mr. Lincoln is not expected to veto."
No Amendment was necessary to dissolve State bonds with the Union. Reference the Declaration of Independence. No Amendment was needed either to dissolve America's original government entirely, the establishment of which was called the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution by less than 100% ratification of the States was itself seen as an act of secession by some of those States of the Articles compact and also by some of our founders like John Jay, who became our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Where is that referenced in the United States Constitution? Replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution by less than 100% ratification of the States was itself seen as an act of secession by some of those States of the Articles compact and also by some of our founders like John Jay, who became our first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. That's an obvious statement of history...the states which negotiated the USCON agreed that only 9 were needed for the Union... "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same..."
Where is that referenced in the United States Constitution? The 9th and 10th Amendments. The secessionist States agreed in violation of the Articles of Confederation: On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity
I've read them several times and never was the Declaration of Independence referenced. And the Declaration was a culmination of a meeting of the WHOLE of The People...not one delegation. There is a difference between a Confederation and a Republic. As is mentioned in the A/I the Union was to be perpetual. The Preamble of the USCON clearly states that the Union was to be *more* Perfect. I can't see any track of logic that leads me to believe that a Perpetual Union, made more perfect, was one that could be negated by one member.
I've read them several times and never was the Declaration of Independence referenced. And the Declaration was a culmination of a meeting of the WHOLE of The People...not one delegation. The 9th and 10th Amendments encompass all rights reserved to the States and the people, including: "it is their right, it is their duty" to throw off Despotic Government and to provide new Guards for their future security. The Declaration was a culmination of Patriots who understood their God-given natural right to secede from despotic government without the permission of it. Loyalists to the Crown weren't of that view, so their consultations were soon no longer considered as admissable. It's arguable that the secession of States from the Articles of Confederation wasn't because it was a despotic form of government but because it was more of a wartime provisional system that was too legislature-centralized. A more Perfect Perpetual Union would not be one that's despotically forced to be unfreely amalgamated.
As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing? Original intent shows freedom, not statism, was the default position in the minds of the founders. The whole weight of the past millennium of history is on that side, going back to "Þorgnýr the Lawspeaker" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution
============================================= The Constitution is 'higher,' including all of the amendments thereto which are still in effect. That would include the Bill of Rights which is not a separate document but part of that Constitution. The reason for the importance of the Constitution can be found in the preamble where it states that the document was created to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity. The Declaration of Independence was more influential since it was the first instance where a people asserted that they were in charge, not some king. The bill of rights is important BUT it is part and parcel of the constitution AND as recently noted in the Heller decision, the Bill of Rights does NOT give any rights, it gives limitations on government for certain rights which we belive all people to HAVE by virtue of being living human beings. The constitution was not ratified until the Bill of Rights was added and would not exist without it BUT our rights WOULD! The Declaration of independence has no legal power or authority.
But the Constitution was only witnessed, not signed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason In any case, we've closed the case. This is supposed to be a free country, and every indicator says that any union is based on voluntary association -- the individual model applied to the corporate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason ??? United States Constitution - Wikipedia 74 delegates were named, 55 attended and 39 signed. Its final version was taken up on Monday, September 17, at the Convention's final session. Several of the delegates were disappointed in the result, a makeshift series of unfortunate compromises. Some delegates left before the ceremony, and three others refused to sign. Of the thirty-nine signers, Benjamin Franklin summed up, addressing the Convention: "There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them." He would accept the Constitution, "because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best."
"In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names" http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Rather odd, isn't it? Can you think of anything else "signed" that way? Sly dogs!
Rather odd, isn't it? Can you think of anything else "signed" that way? Sly dogs! Pic: Part of page four of the Constitution, showing the signatures of the delegates That's all I have time to research and post about that for today. When I can resume, it will most likely be after I've archived some info on the Corwin Amendment.
At Post #5 of 4um Title: The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War From the Comment section at AL.com [Alabama] July 02, 2015: A close-up look at Birmingham's embattled Confederate monument March 1861 “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of such state.” If the war was over slavery, all the South had to do was to ratify the original 13th Amendment, the Corwin Amendment, and slavery would have forever been protected by the Constitution. Why did the South NOT accept this amendment? Because it was about tariffs, not slavery. Attempts to Amend the Federal Amendment Clause Only one attempt to amend Article V was among the select group of six proposed amendments that was actually passed by Congress and defeated by the states. It is the so-called Corwin amendment. Without its preamble it read: Congress adopted this proposal on March 2, 1861. ... It proposes to protect slave states from congressional interference. But it can rightly be considered an amendment to Article V because, if ratified, it would significantly and expressly have curtailed the federal amending power. ... [T]he Corwin amendment did not (explicitly) bar its own repeal. [Lester Bernhardt] Orfield counts 14 proposed amendments that would somehow have precluded the abolition of slavery. Only the Corwin amendment passed Congress. ... [T]he Corwin amendment had only been validly ratified by two states (Ohio, Maryland). Illinois attempted to ratify it, but probably did so defectively by voting to ratify it in a state constitutional convention that happened to be in session in 1861. Incidentally, the Corwin amendment and the Thirteenth Amendment were the only proposed amendments ever signed by the President. ... James Buchanan signed the Corwin amendment two days before leaving office for Abraham Lincoln ... Lincoln signed the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, but thinking he erred he notified Congress. The Senate declared the signature unnecessary and not to be a precedent. ... When the Twelfth Amendment was still in Congress, a Senate resolution to submit it to the President (Jefferson) was defeated. Before and after the Corwin amendment Congress realized that the President need not sign, and cannot veto, a constitutional amendment. Lincoln’s Pro-Slavery Record – LewRockwell.com article: The Lincoln Cult's Latest Cover-Up posted at 4um Title: THE LIES OF THE ABRAHAM LINCOLN CULT EXPOSED - HE PUSHED FOR SLAVERY TO BE PERMANENT FIXTURE OF U.S. CONSTITUTION; Excerpts: Actually, the letter is not at all "amazing" to anyone familiar with the real Lincoln. It was a copy of a letter that was sent to the governor of every state urging them all to support the amendment, which had already passed the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, that would have made southern slavery constitutionally "irrevocable," to use the word that Lincoln used in his first inaugural address. The amendment passed after the lower South had seceded, suggesting that it was passed with almost exclusively Northern votes. Lincoln and the entire North were perfectly willing to enshrine slavery forever in the Constitution. This is one reason why the great Massachusetts libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner ... hated and despised Lincoln and his entire gang The Lincoln cult knows about all of this, but works diligently to keep it out of view of the general public. The fact that news organizations reported the "find," however, creates a problem for the cult. ... Every once in a while, though, a cult member (or an aspiring cult member) slips up and spills the beans. A recent example is the "political biography" of Lincoln recently published [by] Doris Kearns-Goodwin entitled "Team of Rivals". This is Goodwin’s first publication on Lincoln, and she has apparently not been filled in on the standard modus operandi of cover-up and obfuscation that is the hallmark of "Lincoln scholarship." She discusses the above-mentioned "first thirteenth amendment" in some detail (as I do in my forthcoming book, Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe, to be published in October). Goodwin dug into the same original sources that all Lincoln scholars are familiar with, but unlike most [Pro-Lincoln] others, she includes the information in her book. Not only did Lincoln support this slavery forever amendment, but the amendment was his idea from the very beginning. He was the secret author of it, orchestrating the politics of its passage from Springfield before he was even inaugurated. Not only that, but he also instructed his political compatriot, William Seward, to work on federal legislation that would outlaw the various personal liberty laws that existed in some of the Northern states. These laws were used to attempt to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act. As explained by Goodwin (p. 296): "He [Lincoln] instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield. The first resolved that 'the Constitution should never be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states.' Another recommendation that he instructed Seward to get through Congress was that 'all state personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law be repealed.'" Goodwin reveals all of this because the theme of her book is what a great political conniver and manipulator Lincoln was and this, of course, is a good example of such deceitfulness. ... She praises him for his pro-slavery amendment because it supposedly "held the Republican Party together." In his first inaugural address Dishonest Abe explicitly supported this amendment while pretending that he hardly knew anything about it (i.e., lying). What he said was: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service." Then, while "holding such a provision to be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Lincoln was not an abolitionist and, unlike Lysander Spooner, he believed that slavery was already constitutional. Nevertheless, he also favored making it "express and irrevocable." The director of the museum in Allentown where Lincoln’s letter to the governors was recently discovered made a feeble attempt to dismiss this entire episode as unimportant by saying that Lincoln was only being "pragmatic." Actually, exactly the opposite is true. Another reason why abolitionists like Spooner detested Lincoln, Seward, and the rest is that he understood that their opposition to slavery was always theoretical or rhetorical. They never came up with any kind of pragmatic plan to end slavery peacefully, as the real pragmatists — the British, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Danes — had done. Indeed, the political leaders of these countries could have provided the Lincoln regime with a detailed roadmap regarding how to go about it. But as Lincoln repeatedly said, his agenda was always, first and foremost, to destroy the secession movement, not to interfere with slavery. And as this episode reveals, for once his actions matched his words. Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia The text refers to slavery with terms such as "domestic institutions" and "persons held to labor or service" and avoids using the word "slavery", following the example set at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which referred to slavery in its draft of the Constitution with comparable descriptions of legal status: "Person held to Service", "the whole Number of free Persons..., three fifths of all other Persons", "The Migration and Importation of such Persons...". Its supporters believed that the Corwin Amendment had a greater chance of success in the legislatures of the Southern states than would have been the case in state ratifying conventions, since state conventions were being conducted throughout the South at which votes to secede from the Union were successful — just as Congress was considering the Corwin Amendment. Out-going President James Buchanan, a Democrat, endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unprecedented step of signing it. His signature on the Congressional joint resolution was unnecessary, as the Supreme Court, in Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798), ruled that the President has no formal role in the constitutional amendment process. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment: Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment, noting that Buchanan had approved it. External links Signed letter from Abraham Lincoln transmitting the Corwin Amendment to North Carolina Governor John W. Ellis, March 16, 1861 [digital.ncdcr.gov] 4um Title: When Americans Understood the Declaration of Independence From Post #s 30 and 44 of 4um Title: Judge Napolitano: Lincoln Set About On The Most Murderous War In American History At the time of the "Civil War", America was still a new nation struggling to become strong enough to free itself from the business of slavery that other nations had entrenched here. Even so, [hundreds of thousands of] lives could [likely] have been spared by a Compensated Emancipation transition for less than it cost financially to wage that war [if Slavery had been the cause rather than tariffs and representative government issues but it wasn't. See also: 4um Ref., Post #s 9-12.] The Federal government officially endorsed Slavery in the Constitution (North, South and also in the Western Territories) and supported it by the Fugitive Slave Clause, etc.]. Appending an additional 4um Ref. with further relevant info and discussion issues. Also, 4um Title: DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT: BLACK SLAVEOWNERS, with additional historic info on Slavery in America at Post #s 2 and 3.
Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth." avalon.law.yale.ed u/19th_century/csa_missec.asp Again, no mention of tariffs...
avalon.law.yale.ed u/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp The word *tariff* appears nowhere in the statement. Why is that? war at #77: Mississippi: avalon.law.yale.ed u/19th_century/csa_missec.asp Again, no mention of tariffs... From the Wikipedia source posted at #81 for the Morrill Tariff: Am posting this link so that readers trying to study these matters won't be as prone to get the wrongful impression of Slave-generated unanimity from your piecemealed selectivity there to persistently inflate Slavery as the cause of Secessions and Confederacy formation: Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America, with links to Declarations of Secession by the few Confederate States that actually issued such documents -- 4 only, of the initial 13 seceding (Missouri and Kentucky being fractiously "Unionized" later); those 4 with Declaration of Secession docs being: South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas On the Ordinances of Secession page, only 3 of the 13 mention "slave" wording and only in the context of conferencing with slave-holding States or the oppression of slaveholding States; those 3 being: Alabama, Texas and Virginia. No doubt Georgia and others had legitimate complaints against the hostilities of abolitionist States fomenting Slave rebellions and so on. No doubt Mississippi and others objected to slaveholding States being deprived of equal access to the Western territories and fair representation governmentally being obstructed by hostiles. No doubt the economic and property concerns of the South were being thwarted by Northern moguls and such, which later plundered all of the South's resources after the war that they could manage to acquire. Am paraphrasing this linked commentary for summarial clarification: The Truth About States' Rights by Adam Freedman, City Journal Autumn 2014 During the first half of the nineteenth century, pro-slavery politicians were much more likely to rely on federal power than on states’ rights. The United States Constitution implicitly permitted slavery, while the “three-fifths clause” [partially] boosted the congressional delegations and Electoral College votes of the slave states. Federal law guaranteed the return of fugitive slaves to their masters. [Reference, too, the Corwin Amendment info at Post #71, in further protection of Slavery Federally -- Congressionally authorized for State ratifications on the very same day as the Morrill Tariff was signed into law -- but the 7 Southern States that had left the Union didn't move to return and still more continued seceding.]
On the Ordinances of Secession page, only 3 of the 13 mention "slave" wording and only in the context of conferencing with slave-holding States or the oppression of slaveholding States; those 3 being: Alabama, Texas and Virginia. An act declaring the political ties heretofore existing between the State of Missouri and the United States of America dissolved. Whereas the Government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions [My note: e.g. civilian safeguardings, the Missouri Militia, civil administrative centers...]; and Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof: Now, therefore, Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, That all political ties of every character new existing between the Government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved, and the State of Missouri, resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth. This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage. Approved by the Missouri Legislature on October 31, 1861. Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States [My note: 13 + Maryland and Delaware, expectedly] of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government: Therefore, Be it ordained, That we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States, and in the name of the people we do hereby declare Kentucky to be a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties. And whereas, the majority of the Legislature of Kentucky have violated their most solemn pledges made before the election, and deceived and betrayed the people; have abandoned the position of neutrality assumed by themselves and the people, and invited into the State the organized armies of Lincoln; have abdicated the Government in favor of a military despotism which they have placed around themselves, but cannot control, and have abandoned the duty of shielding the citizen with their protection; have thrown upon our people and the State the horrors and ravages of war, instead of attempting to preserve the peace, and have voted [My note: i.e. drafted] men and money for the war waged by the North for the destruction of our constitutional rights; have violated the expressed words of the constitution by borrowing five millions of money for the support of the war without a vote of the people; have permitted the arrest and imprisonment of our citizens, and transferred the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive to a military commission of partisans; have seen the writ of habeas corpus suspended without an effort for its preservation, and permitted our people to be driven in exile from their homes; have subjected our property to confiscation and our persons to confinement in the penitentiary as felons, because we may choose to take part in a cause for civil liberty and constitutional government against a sectional majority waging war against the people and institutions of fifteen independent States of the old Federal Union, and have done all these things deliberately against the warnings and vetoes of the Governor and the solemn remonstrance's of the minority in the Senate and House of Representatives: Therefore, Be it further ordained, That the unconstitutional edicts of a factious majority of a Legislature thus false to their pledges, their honor, and their interests are not law, and that such a government is unworthy of the support of a brave and free people, and that we do therefore declare that the people are thereby absolved from all allegiance to said government, and that they have a right to establish any government which to them may seem best adapted to the preservation of their rights and liberties. Adopted 20 Nov 1861, by a Convention of the People of Kentucky.
Southern sympathizers in Kentucky got their asses kicked in the 1860 election; so, some of them got together and tried to form their own government, including appointing a governor. Had secession actually been valid, their act was still invalid...
Had secession actually been valid, their act was still invalid... The Articles of Confederation asserted a "Perpetual Union". The U.S. Constitution documenting the secessions from it doesn't contain such phrasing. The D.C. Federal Government itself endorsed the secession of West Virginia from Virginia and admitted it into the Union, as you know. In fact (and contrary to popular belief that the war began at Fort Sumter), it was officials of America's government that seceded D.C. jurisdictionally from South Carolina first -- with no interceding authorized replacements; just a stealth attempt to occupy a S.C. fort -- a month and a half before that State moved to secede: closing down the Federal District Court and Grand Jury there (i.e. an orchestrated staging of defacto Martial Law conditions) ... jeopardizing State security and its port in the process ... [See also: 4um Ref., Post #s 9-12]; noted in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph from the end at Post #71 above. South Carolina's Governor should have immediately ordered the State Militia to occupy all forts of the harbor at that point. That he evidently didn't indicates possible complicity on his part in the endangerment of that State and its people. What claiming that secession was invalid simply amounts to, technically, is that all of the various Union States warring in league with U.S. Military Forces against States of the Confederacy (as supposedly still parties of the United States in errant rebellion of Federal authority) committed high Treason against them in violation of Article Three of the United States Constitution, Section 3: Treason:
So "a more *perfect* union", in your opinion, is one that is less so? The D.C. Federal Government itself endorsed the secession of West Virginia from Virginia and admitted it into the Union... Members of the government of Virginia gave such permission to the US to form the State of Kanawha which was to become West Virginia.
So "a more *perfect* union", in your opinion, is one that is less so? Members of the government of Virginia gave such permission to the US to form the State of Kanawha which was to become West Virginia. Interesting, if so. Never heard of that before and rather do suspect many in high places at the time were working on the sly as chaos agents. Can you post a link to the documentation?
I've pointed out the inherent differences between subjugate colonial America which had 0 representation in Parliament versus the Southern States which, in 1860, had the exact number of representatives and Senators that they had agreed to have in 1788. Never heard of that before and rather do suspect many in high places at the time were working on the sly as chaos agents. Can you post a link to the documentation?
#97. To: war (#95)
(Edited)
You didn't say anything there about why you seem to be ok with America's secession from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, which wasn't done because of non-representations or despotism. A State of Convenience: The Creation of West Virginia From a quick scan through the chapters, it looks like they took it upon themselves to install a Unionist and WVA Secession friendly government of their making to get Independence while the Virginians busied at war who might not have approved didn't get a vote on that.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: jwpegler (#9)
#13. To: war, jwpegler, jethro tull, lod, neoconsnailed, x-15 (#10)
There was no confederacy...there was mass treason that was quelled.
#14. To: war, jwpegler, jethro tull, lod, neoconsnailed, x-15, CHRISTINE (#13)
#17. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#14)
war, are you aware that Abraham Lincoln attempted to ratify the 13th Amendment for the purpose of legalizing the ownership of human being as property (slavery)?
#18. To: war (#17)
#20. To: NeoconsNailed (#18)
Is the Union perpetual through the rest of time regardless of what percentage of the people still want it?
#21. To: war (#20)
#26. To: NeoconsNailed (#21)
(Edited)
I can see it now -- "The Amendment to let the Southern states leave the Union has been passed. Mr. Lincoln is not expected to veto."
#29. To: GreyLmist (#26)
(Edited)
Reference the Declaration of Independence.
#33. To: war (#29)
Reference the Declaration of Independence.
the states which negotiated the USCON agreed that only 9 were needed for the Union...
[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
#34. To: GreyLmist (#33)
The 9th and 10th Amendments.
#36. To: war (#34)
The 9th and 10th Amendments.
There is a difference between a Confederation and a Republic. As is mentioned in the A/I the Union was to be perpetual. The Preamble of the USCON clearly states that the Union was to be *more* Perfect. I can't see any track of logic that leads me to believe that a Perpetual Union, made more perfect, was one that could be negated by one member.
#40. To: GreyLmist (#36)
#43. To: NeoconsNailed, greylmist (#40)
(Edited)
As I understand it, the Declaration is considered higher law than the Constitution. Doesn't the "alter or abolish" clause answer this whole thing?
#45. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#43)
#48. To: NeoconsNailed (#45)
the Constitution was only witnessed, not signed.
Signatories: 39 of the 55 delegates
#49. To: GreyLmist (#48)
(Edited)
#50. To: NeoconsNailed (#49)
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
List of signers of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
#71. To: All (#50)
(Edited)
info on the Corwin Amendment
THE CORWIN AMENDMENT
B. An historical proposal passed by Congress [The Corwin Amendment]
No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
On July 19 the Associated Press and Reuter’s reported an "amazing find" at a museum in Allentown, Pennsylvania: A copy of a letter dated March 16, 1861, and signed by Abraham Lincoln imploring the governor of Florida to rally political support for a constitutional amendment that would have legally enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution. ... The document was found in the Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, Historical Society archives in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861 and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. Senator William H. Seward of New York introduced the amendment in the Senate and Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced it in the House of Representatives. It was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and to entice border slave states to stay. Technically still pending before the states, it would, if ratified, shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress.
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
In his first inaugural address Lincoln strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act and the proposed "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution, which had already passed the House and Senate, which would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. Thus, it was his position that slavery should be explicitly enshrined in the Constitution, made "express and irrevocable" to use his exact words, which is hardly the position one who believes that "all men are created equal" would take. It was empty political rhetoric at its worst.
slaveholding border States of the Union were Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. New Jersey and New Hampshire were two more slaveholding Union States ... fully 1/3 of the Union being slave States [+ Territories and D.C. itself] ... Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" freed none of them from slavery. It was a year into the war before slavery in the Union's own capitol-city of Washington D.C. was monetarily facilitated towards being ended there by the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act [Wikipedia]. Even with that, the fugitive slave laws still applied and D.C. was reportedly among slaveholders after the war until slavery was officially abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. [Ref. Slavery in the United States: The end of slavery - Wikipedia] ... [S]lavery was not completely lifted in New Hampshire and New Jersey until the nationwide emancipation in 1865. ... [S]lavery in America [had to be abolished] again after we acquired Alaska from Russia [4um Ref.]
#77. To: GreyLmist (#71)
#82. To: war (#77)
(Edited)
war at #76: Georgia Statement of Secession:
"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."
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."
the Morrill Tariff was addressed in the [secession] conventions of Georgia and South Carolina
Consider the logic. If [Secession is insisted to have been motivationally about protecting the institution of Slavery in the South,] then it’s fair to ask: Protect
ed it against what? Presumably, against a threatened federal law that would impose abolition upon unwilling Southern states. But the federal government never came close to enacting such a law before the Civil War; the Emancipation Proclamation would not come until the middle of the war (1863), and even then, it applied only to the states in rebellion. Before that, few federal proposals would have interfered with the autonomy of existing slave states, and those proposals went nowhere. Constitutional amendments to abolish slavery had been introduced in the House in 1818 and 1839; neither made it to the floor for a vote.
#84. To: All (#82)
(Edited)
Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America, with links to Declarations of Secession by the few Confederate States that actually issued such documents -- 4 only, of the initial 13 seceding (Missouri and Kentucky being fractiously "Unionized" later); those 4 with Declaration of Secession docs being: South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas
The Missouri and Kentucky Ordinances of Secession:
Missouri
Kentucky
#86. To: GreyLmist (#84)
#87. To: war (#86)
(Edited)
Southern sympathizers in Kentucky got their asses kicked in the 1860 election; so, some of them got together and tried to form their own government, including appointing a governor.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them
#92. To: GreyLmist (#87)
The U.S. Constitution documenting the secessions from it doesn't contain such phrasing.
#94. To: war (#92)
(Edited)
The U.S. Constitution documenting the secessions from it doesn't contain such phrasing.
That is not an answer to my question at #88, war. [Edit: Disregard that and the next adjustments similarly. Didn't notice you had answered my inquiry in your preceeding post.] You don't seem to object to America's secession from the government of Britain considered to be despotic or to America's Union-downsizing secession from the Articles of Confederation that wasn't considered tyrannical -- just to the South's secession from a rogue run system distorting the Constitution. Why is that[?] and why do you denounce Slavery except in the sense of State enslavement? It wasn't like those States wanted to secede from the Constitution -- just the mismanagement of it. My opinion of "a more perfect union" is still like it was at #36: one that's not forced to be an unvoluntary conglomerate. The D.C. Federal Government itself endorsed the secession of West Virginia from Virginia and admitted it into the Union...
#95. To: GreyLmist (#94)
You don't seem to object to America's secession from the government of Britain
Replies to Comment # 95. I've pointed out the inherent differences between subjugate colonial America which had 0 representation in Parliament versus the Southern States which, in 1860, had the exact number of representatives and Senators that they had agreed to have in 1788.
www.wvculture .org/history/statehood/statehood05.html
End Trace Mode for Comment # 95.
