Friday, January 14, 2011
--Cicero 55 BC
Quote via Cousin Bill
6. "I ought not to have fought the battle at Gettysburg; it was a mistake. But the stakes were so great I was compelled to play; for had we succeeded, Harrisburg, Baltimore and Washington were in our hands; and, we would have succeeded had Pender lived."
General Lee to General G.C. Wharton
Sons of Confederate Veterans
The International Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans will hold a joint press conference on Tuesday, January 18, 2011, beginning at 3pm in the Zenger Room of The National Press Club (529 14th Street N.W., Washington DC).
The purpose of the press conference will be to discuss the continuing failures of Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell to respectfully and adequately deal with a variety of history and heritage issues in the Commonwealth. The press conference will also address similar issues with prospective Senatorial candidate George Allen. Please mark your calendar for 3pm on January 18.
A press release on this subject will be forthcoming.
Anyone desiring information may contact Brag Bowling at 804-389-3620.
"The cause for which Stuart and Mosby fought is being irrevocably reduced to the same moral level as the cause for which Rommel and Yamamoto fought— and this claim is not an overstatement."
"The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.
On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure."Via The Cliffs of Insanity
"Government is founded upon violence, which is why the Founding Fathers, who quite clearly believed that violence against the government was justified, also believed it was vitally important to limit government very strictly. And it is why no one who believes that violence against the government is never justified should be permitted to vote in America, hold political office, or work as government employee. It is an intellectual position that is about as fundamentally un-American as it is possible to hold."
-- Read it, don't violate it
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
Calls for greater gun control in response to the Tucson, Arizona massacre are growing daily on Capitol Hill.
This hardly comes as a surprise. For many legislators, the knee-jerk reaction to any criminal shooting is to pass yet another gun control law, despite the fact that the criminal already broke many laws in the commission of the crime.
The zaniest of the new proposals is one by Representative Peter King (R-NY) to ban guns within 1,000 feet of certain federal officials -- including members of Congress. What the Congressman ignores is that what he euphemistically calls "gun free zones" are actually "criminal safety zones."
Thankfully, House Speaker John Boehner flatly rejected the King plan.
Another proposal, being offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), would ban ammunition feeding devices holding more than an arbitrarily determined number of rounds.
For Mr. Lautenberg, the magic number is 10 rounds.
"These high-capacity clips (sic) simply should not be on the market," Lautenberg said. "When the Senate returns to Washington, I will introduce legislation to prohibit this type of high-capacity clip."
But what would Lautenberg say to the "average citizen" who runs out of ammunition when facing multiple attackers? Or, more accurately, what would he say to that victim's family?
Of course, if Lautenberg were successful there is no doubt he would be back with a ban on even smaller magazines as soon as the next headlines are made. He's only trying to take a small bite out of the Constitution at this time, as he seeks political advantage from the sad events of last weekend.
To make matters worse, when the Senate reconvenes later this month Majority Leader Harry Reid has cooked up a plan to make it easier to pass anti-gun laws like Frank Lautenberg's.
Reid is seeking to change the rules of the Senate to strip the minority party (currently Republicans) of their ability to stop legislation using the filibuster, which historically requires a 60 vote majority to overcome.
Pro-gun Senators have successfully used the filibuster to stop gun control, especially when emotions are running high following a nationally publicized shooting.
But before the Senate considers changing its rules to make it easier to pass gun control or votes on any bills that would violate the Constitution, Gun Owners of America has a proposal of its own: Read the Constitution!
As you know, GOA spearheaded the effort to get the Constitution read on the floor of the Congress. Speaker Boehner brought the reading to the House floor two weeks ago, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has made no indication that he will follow suit.
That is a sad commentary on the Senate. The Constitution is the real, binding contract with America, but it continues to be ignored even though each and every Senator raises his or her right hand and swears an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and that they will "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
Harry Reid cannot be allowed to continue to rule the Senate with an iron fist. GOA is working with several senate offices on a plan to read the Constitution over Reid's opposition. It is important for all Senators to support this effort to read out loud America's most important founding document.
Action: Contact your Senators and urge them to 1) oppose Harry Reid's plan to do away with the filibuster, 2) oppose the effort by Sen. Frank Lautenberg to ban so-called "high capacity" ammunition feeding devices and, 3) support any effort or resolution to have the U.S. Constitution read out loud on the floor of the Senate. You can click on the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to quickly send your Senators a pre-written message.
Via Hamp, SWR
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters want to change the law, while only 18% want it left alone"
"Despite the change of control in the House, voters continue to believe Congress can screw things up worse than they already are."
Dubunking So-Called Myths
January 13, 2011
From: "Jamey Creel"
To :firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Please find below response to false accusations made by Ensley in last Sunday's paper. The Tallahassee Democrat typically prints 3 or more to 1 articles Against Confederacy/ South but never seems to print the rest of the story. Please accept this as a partial list of what actually did occur rather that the politically confused portion. Thank for you time.
Letter to editor/"my view"
Study ALL Causes of the War Between the States
Continuing the anti-Confederate rhetoric of Chuck Hobbs December 20, January 9 Ensley “opinion” must be nice ignoring much history to “justify” view then claim “we” are revisionists? Was slavery an issue? Yes, but not “the”.
It was ok when New England States threatened to secede in 1814, but not when the South did. Looking at some facts; The State of South Carolina made Declaration of the IMMEDIATE Causes for secession. One must skip FIFTEEN paragraphs in document before slavery issue is addressed. Florida didn’t mention in actual secession document. Georgia outlined ALL issues including slavery, unfair federal bounties and tariffs given to north.
Georgia says: “The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests.” Let the South go was the cry until the Confederacy open free-trade ports circumventing US tariffs. Only then does Lincoln worry about government funding.
Virginia in early April Voted NOT to secede, changing after Lincolns troop call to invade Sister Southern States. Then US colonel Robert E Lee of VA was asked to lead US army. Lee would free all his slaves prior to 1859 and his wife’s in 1863. US general Grants slaves would have to wait after 1865 13th amendment took effect! CS general Nathan Forrest, many attack, slaves were freed in 1863. He testified to US Congress those riding with him “there were no better Confederates”! Nelson Winbush, a slave descendant, lives in Florida and is a Sons of Confederate Veterans member.
Texas mentions illegal aliens in 1861. So we have taxation, illegal aliens, unConstitutional actions, illegal taxation, etc. Sound familiar?
I found my grandmothers 1930’s Florida State College for Women history text. “A History of the People of the United States” first published in 1900. On page 320 we read “the Confederate Constitution was similar in most respect to Federal Constitution.” What were differences? “Powers which the Federal government had assumed, but which states’ rights people had ALWAYS objected, such as internal improvements, protective tariffs and bounties, were FORBIDDEN.“ A 1904 NYT review, “A Southern School History,” of text praises it for accuracy, incorporating 1880’s Official Records of the War of Rebellion, by US government.
Presidential term was limited to 6 years – no reelection. You run ONCE, get the job, do the job and stop perpetually “running” for office as today. President had line-item veto power. The budget required 2/3 approval of BOTH House and Senate. States had Right to challenge position of federal judges. States had power allowing minimum 3 States RIGHT to initiate a Constitution Convention. Unlike US, to protect northern shipping, Confederates outright banned slave importation. The post office had to fund itself. The Preamble added “…each State acting in its Sovereign and independent character…invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God…”
So, MOST issues in the Confederate Constitution deal with State Rights – not slavery.
What did Lincolns inaugural address say? It was not freeing slaves. He said, “he would hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government…to collect the duties and imports.” Why is this important? In March 1861 one of first things passed was the Morrill Tariff, which had been introduced in 1859. Tariff was raised from 20% to nearly 50%, paid mainly by the South according to economist such as Walter E Williams of George Mason University. High tariffs lasted till 1913. The north had complained over 30 years of low tariffs. During the Panic of 1857 the north suffered the greatest and blamed the South. Upward of 5,000 northern businesses went under.
Lincolns view of blacks? "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln by Roy P. Basler, Volume III (9- 18-1858). He apparently felt same way about natives as he had 38 hung at one time in 1863! US generals Sherman and Sheridan would do much worse after 1865 as they had done to the South during war.
Lincoln and slavery? Supporting Corwin amendment (the original 13th passed by several northern States) Lincoln hand wrote letters sent to all Southern States. Corwin was to PERPETUALLY KEEP slavery. An original was found in 2007 addressed to 1861 Florida governor Perry!
What did Lincoln want done with blacks? He supported Colonization Society sending them to Liberia. War was all but over in March 1865, Congress was still debating funding to ship blacks to Africa (Congressional Record). This was during time US Congress was debating starving Confederates held in US prisons.
During "Great Awakening" of 1857/8 religious revivals swept the north. "Our First Century" history text never mentions slavery nor abolition. Note, first black churches were started in the South.
We complain of Bush detaining 600 prisoners in Cuba. Lincoln illegally suspended Habeas Corpus and jailed 13,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS! Many were northern elected officials and newspapermen who spoke against him. Or, the 500 women and children his army shipped north from Georgia in cattle cars.
It’s interesting some changes in Confederate Constitution are still issues today. Many problems were Hamilton’s idea of centralized government in 1776! The only “slavery” issue then and now is the total enslavement of us all by federal government taxation and mandates seemingly to support those who steal thru and suckle off federal government using threat of force and circumventing Constitution. Color matters not, so leave off race baiting.
Sunday 10th cartoon was revisionist. It was not under the Confederate Battle Flag causing the 3/5 blacks count. That was under US Flag because of northern States refusal to recognize blacks as whole persons to protect their Congressional power!
In 1866 Lee wrote to Lord Action, He believed State Rights were the only way to keep federal gov’t in check and “… whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.” Prophecy?
I am showing the rest trying to show there is more to history than typically taught in federal government controlled schools. Only if we understand each “side” will we continue what our Southern and northern ancestors did when they came home and took up peaceful pursuits. Or, when they met former adversaries at 1913 Gettysburg reunion and shook hands. Otherwise the chasms will continue that are being created by those like Ensley, Hobbs, White, Pitts, etc who only show partial information. Interesting when black Southerners appeared at Gettysburg, they had not been provided for and stayed with their Southern compatriots! Stop the race baiting and separating and learn all history.
Jamey B Creel, Chairman of the “Convention of the People”
--Vote of Secession event held in Tallahasee. http://www.floridasecessionreenactment.org/
Dubunking So-Called Myths
--Chap. 16 , Section 19 of the Coinage Act of 1792, passed by the United States Congress on April 2, 1792.
Quote, via GardenSerf
--John Dickinson & Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking up Arms, 1775
In response to what do we do if we get rid of fiat currency.
"When someone removes a cancer, what do you replace it with!?"
--The perceptive Thomas Sowell!
Via Western Rifle Shooters Association