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: 657
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 # 96.
#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.
The Framers' intent was to create a government wherein *change* or revolution was accomplished through debate...i.e. warring with words and argument... And keep your eye on the ball here, the tariff argument doesn't fly because, as of 1856, they were actually lower and narrower than what was passed in the 1820's...so...if your future *security* is dependent upon the power of a state government to forcibly enslave human beings then I submit that is hardly a *security* worth saving and perpetuating... The Declaration was a culmination of Patriots who understood their God-given natural right to secede from despotic government without the permission of it. The Declaration was a *culmination* of the realization that the colonists would never be granted a say in how they were governed. The Southern States suffered under no such yoke and, in fact, FREELY entered in to an agreement that bound them to the rules of the Republic. What happened is, that as time progressed on the Republic, what they wished to preserve was no longer tenable. They were also Creator given which, to some I am sure, including Jefferson, could have meant nothing more than having been born. Atheism was hardly unknown in the 18th century and Deism/Unitarianism was a way of being so without saying so. 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. That is very well stated and I have to say, again, that I really admire how it is that you write. This is an open question of history: What would have happened had Annapolis failed or had 9 states not ratified? Would the States have continued to operate under the Articles and tried again? Would the US have fractionated in to 13 Republics or Commonwealths? But when we look, again, at history, we know that it took an actual trail. In 1860, there were 33 states that, again, FREELY entered in to the United States. They FREELY agreed to a the form of government that they all knew could either advance some practices or end them. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (3/5's of all other persons) ADVANCED the notion that the South would be best served by INCREASING the slave population. Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 (slave trade) was a timebomb/poison pill that slave states KNEW could go off or be activated any time after 1808. And anyone who had anything to do with Founding or Framing the Confederation and then the Republic, KNEW that the question of slavery was going to be an open ended one that would be debated until either made permanent or ended. Every slave state knew this when they FREELY entered into the United States...
Thanks for your generosity and stoically thoughtful input of regularity at Post #51. Until that point, I had intended to comment only on the transition of America's government from the War of Independence and the Articles of Confederation to the Union-downsizing establishment of the Constitution -- refrain from debating contentions of the War Between the States anymore; just post informational sources on the subjects occasionally that might be of assistance, so as not to provide any quarter to continual perpetuations of the unity-demolishing, Marxist meme that Slavery was the Confederacy's raison d'etre/reason or justification for existence. Would have to check but am fairly sure that there were few, if any, non-slaveholding States of the Articles of Confederation. The Federal Government of the Constitution wasn't moving to dissolve Slavery. Quite the opposite, as the Corwin Amendment and its Congressional authorization for ratification demonstrates. I think most of the issues submitted at #51 may have been addressed in the postings here since then. On the 3/5's notion that the South would be best served by increasing the slave population, that clause was inserted at the Constitution convention, when most all of the States would have had slaves. [Ref. Post #69: Charles Cotesworth Pinckney info] The 3/5's clause was a deterrent to increasing slave populations, imo, because it meant that taxation of the States would be increased according to the counting of those non-citizen populations but there would not be 100% governmental representation permitted for the States -- i.e. taxation without full representation and the North benefitting most from the tax revenues, as usual. Other than that reply, what I'd like to ask is: Would you agree that condemning Slavery but suggesting that the Constitution of the Union was a State enslavement contract is ironic or something?
Ha...interesting question... The answer is contingent upon your point of view. My answer is, of course, no. That such an alliance, compact etc is going to be somewhat elastic as to who is going to benefit more than another at any given time. On the 3/5's notion that the South would be best served by increasing the slave population, that clause was inserted at the Constitution convention, when most all of the States would have had slaves. IIRC, and I'll research this and edit, if need be (and note if I do)...5 states had ended slavery (edit: which means it still existed in 8)...3 or 4 more were in the process of doing so but none of the *Northern* states in which slavery was still an institution allowed for the open bartering or trading of slaves in 1789...I'm positive that NJ did not allow slave trading...
Ha...interesting question... The answer is contingent upon your point of view. My answer is, of course, no. That such an alliance, compact etc is going to be somewhat elastic as to who is going to benefit more than another at any given time. Your contingent answer is a definitive no because... the compact is like silly putty, nevermind that it gets incessantly and unrecognizably stuck on stupid, skewed, oppressive and so on... only the compact signatures aren't flexible. Just skip that question and answer session for now. IIRC, and I'll research this and edit, if need be (and note if I do)...5 states had ended slavery (edit: which means it still existed in 8)...3 or 4 more were in the process of doing so but none of the *Northern* states in which slavery was still an institution allowed for the open bartering or trading of slaves in 1789...I'm positive that NJ did not allow slave trading... I could only find Massachusetts in this listing as having no slaves in that timeframe: Abolition of slavery timeline: 1700–1799 [Wikipedia source added last at Archive Post #91]
#99. To: GreyLmist (#96)
Yea...most states, when they abolished slavery, did not immediately manumit them as well but kept them in servitude until the *owner* died....
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.
#51. To: GreyLmist (#36)
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.
#88. To: war (#51)
(Edited)
#93. To: GreyLmist (#88)
(Edited)
Would you agree that condemning Slavery but suggesting that the Constitution of the Union was a State enslavement contract is ironic or something?
#96. To: war (#93)
Would you agree that condemning Slavery but suggesting that the Constitution of the Union was a State enslavement contract is ironic or something?
On the 3/5's notion that the South would be best served by increasing the slave population, that clause was inserted at the Constitution convention, when most all of the States would have had slaves.
1775–83: Britain's rebellious North American Colonies ban or suspend the Atlantic slave trade.
1775: Pennsylvania Abolition Society formed in Philadelphia, the first abolition society within the territory that is now the United States of America.
1777: Constitution of the Vermont Republic partially banned slavery, freeing men over 21 and women older than 18 at the time of its passage. The ban was not strongly enforced.
1780: Pennsylvania passes An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, freeing future children of slaves. Those born prior to the Act remain enslaved for life. The Act becomes a model for other Northern states. Last slaves freed 1847.
1783: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules slavery unconstitutional, a decision based on the 1780 Massachusetts constitution. All slaves are immediately freed.
1783: New Hampshire begins a gradual abolition of slavery.
1784: Connecticut begins a gradual aboliton of slavery, freeing future children of slaves, and later all slaves.
1784: Rhode Island begins a gradual abolition of slavery.
1787: The United States in Congress Assembled passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, outlawing any new slavery in the Northwest Territories.
Replies to Comment # 96. I could only find Massachusetts in this listing as having no slaves in that timeframe:
End Trace Mode for Comment # 96.