http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397 &nbsp; Individuals, groups,&nbsp;and organizations who denounce the Confederate States of America,&nbsp;the Confederate flag, and the celebration of Confederate Memorial Day appear very ignorant, biased, and hypocritical. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Confederate flag represents Limited Constitutional Federal&nbsp;Government, States Rights, Resistance to Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. In claiming that the Confederate flag represents slavery and racism they make&nbsp;no comparison to the U.S. flag (Stars &amp; Stripes) and to the history of the United States of America. Slavery began in the North in Massachusetts. Soon after the Pilgrims landed&nbsp; they began enslaving the Pequot Indians. In 1641 Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery by statute. The five states that imported slaves in the colonial era were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and New York. The slave trade was still in operation at the beginning of the War Between the States and the slave ship &quot;Nightingale&quot; was captured by Capt. John Julius Guthrie, who soon became a Confederate naval officer, on April 21, 1861. It was registered to the city of Boston, Massachusetts. Thus the slave trade in America was carried on under the U.S. flag and the flags of the Northern colonies and states with U.S.&nbsp;money.&nbsp; The U.S. flag flew over slavery for 90 years as compared to&nbsp;4 for the Confederate flag. New York City had the&nbsp;second highest slave population in the U.S. The official flag of the KKK is the U.S. flag, not the Confederate flag. Indiana and Ohio in the 1920 era were the largest Klan states and all photographs of that era show them flying the U.S. flag. The U.S. flag flew over the concentration camp incarceration of loyal Japanese U.S. Citizens during World War II while some of their fathers and sons fought and died for the U.S. as American soldiers. The U.S. participated in the allied bombing of Dresden,Germany in World War II which&nbsp;was a population center and not involved in the war effort. Thousands of innocent children were burned alive. Finally the U.S. flag flies over a nation that has murdered an estimated&nbsp;50 million babies by abortion.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The U.S. flag flew over the genocide of the American Indians. Their land was taken without fair compensation and they died by the&nbsp;thousands from starvation and disease as they were herded onto reservations. It was the U.S. government that broke every treaty ever made with the Indians. The U.S. flag flew over the Trail Of Tears endured by the Cherokee. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Given these facts, which flag has flown over more human rights violations, the U.S. flag or the Confederate flag? Which flag is more associated with slavery ? Which flag has had more racist acts committed under it ? Clearly the answer is the U.S. flag.&nbsp;Both the United States of America and the Confederate States of America and the flags, heroes, and symbols&nbsp;of each nation should be respected and honored for positive reasons. &nbsp; Individuals, groups,&nbsp;and organizations who denounce the Confederate States of America,&nbsp;the Confederate flag, and the celebration of Confederate Memorial Day appear very ignorant, biased, and hypocritical. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Confederate flag represents Limited Constitutional Federal&nbsp;Government, States Rights, Resistance to Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. In claiming that the Confederate flag represents slavery and racism they make&nbsp;no comparison to the U.S. flag (Stars &amp; Stripes) and to the history of the United States of America. Slavery began in the North in Massachusetts. Soon after the Pilgrims landed&nbsp; they began enslaving the Pequot Indians. In 1641 Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery by statute. The five states that imported slaves in the colonial era were Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and New York. The slave trade was still in operation at the beginning of the War Between the States and the slave ship &quot;Nightingale&quot; was captured by Capt. John Julius Guthrie, who soon became a Confederate naval officer, on April 21, 1861. It was registered to the city of Boston, Massachusetts. Thus the slave trade in America was carried on under the U.S. flag and the flags of the Northern colonies and states with U.S.&nbsp;money.&nbsp; The U.S. flag flew over slavery for 90 years as compared to&nbsp;4 for the Confederate flag. New York City had the&nbsp;second highest slave population in the U.S. The official flag of the KKK is the U.S. flag, not the Confederate flag. Indiana and Ohio in the 1920 era were the largest Klan states and all photographs of that era show them flying the U.S. flag. The U.S. flag flew over the concentration camp incarceration of loyal Japanese U.S. Citizens during World War II while some of their fathers and sons fought and died for the U.S. as American soldiers. The U.S. participated in the allied bombing of Dresden,Germany in World War II which&nbsp;was a population center and not involved in the war effort. Thousands of innocent children were burned alive. Finally the U.S. flag flies over a nation that has murdered an estimated&nbsp;50 million babies by abortion.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The U.S. flag flew over the genocide of the American Indians. Their land was taken without fair compensation and they died by the&nbsp;thousands from starvation and disease as they were herded onto reservations. It was the U.S. government that broke every treaty ever made with the Indians. The U.S. flag flew over the Trail Of Tears endured by the Cherokee. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Given these facts, which flag has flown over more human rights violations, the U.S. flag or the Confederate flag? Which flag is more associated with slavery ? Which flag has had more racist acts committed under it ? Clearly the answer is the U.S. flag.&nbsp;Both the United States of America and the Confederate States of America and the flags, heroes, and symbols&nbsp;of each nation should be respected and honored for positive reasons. en-us Last I heard the civil war was fought because the Confederate states wanted to keep slavery. The Confederate flag symbolizes the those Confederate states. What did I miss? The above argument seems ridiculous to me. But, this is still a free country and anyone (other than an official governmental office) can fly whatever they want in their yard, and that I will defend irrespective of my above point of view. http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11462 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11462 Last I heard the civil war was fought because the Confederate states wanted to keep slavery. The Confederate flag symbolizes the those Confederate states. What did I miss? The above argument seems ridiculous to me. But, this is still a free country and anyone (other than an official governmental office) can fly whatever they want in their yard, and that I will defend irrespective of my above point of view. <p>anonymous, read my other blog &quot;The 10 Causes Of The War Between The States (civil War)&quot;.&nbsp; If you think that the cause of the war was entirely slavery then you have missed a whole lot.&nbsp; Money and power were the primary Northern reasons for invading the South.&nbsp;But that is understandable because American history books are written by Northern socialist professors and historians. You have not likely ever had the opportunity to read the complete story of the 10 causes. American schools only teach an edited sanitized union friendly whitewashed version and perspective of history. After you read my other Blog which thoroughly details the 10 causes I would appreciate your posting another comment. </p> <p>Let me know your thoughts and opinion.</p> <p>James W. King Commander Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp 141 Albany, Georgia</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11472 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11472 <p>anonymous, read my other blog &quot;The 10 Causes Of The War Between The States (civil War)&quot;.&nbsp; If you think that the cause of the war was entirely slavery then you have missed a whole lot.&nbsp; Money and power were the primary Northern reasons for invading the South.&nbsp;But that is understandable because American history books are written by Northern socialist professors and historians. You have not likely ever had the opportunity to read the complete story of the 10 causes. American schools only teach an edited sanitized union friendly whitewashed version and perspective of history. After you read my other Blog which thoroughly details the 10 causes I would appreciate your posting another comment. </p> <p>Let me know your thoughts and opinion.</p> <p>James W. King Commander Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp 141 Albany, Georgia</p> <div class="blogcommentbody">The South got what they deserved.&nbsp; You state that the north wanted to unfairly tax them, Well when your becoming rich on the back of slaves you should be taxed to the hilt.&nbsp; The Southerners built nothing they only existed on the backs of free labor.&nbsp; They lost the war because they were weak, fat, and lazy, due to using Slaves.&nbsp; They got what they deserved and the southern flag will never be seen as anything other than a symbol of hatred and racism no matter what justification is given.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thats what happens when your the looser.&nbsp; May that flag burn in hell after i spit on it.&nbsp;</div> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11569 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11569 <div class="blogcommentbody">The South got what they deserved.&nbsp; You state that the north wanted to unfairly tax them, Well when your becoming rich on the back of slaves you should be taxed to the hilt.&nbsp; The Southerners built nothing they only existed on the backs of free labor.&nbsp; They lost the war because they were weak, fat, and lazy, due to using Slaves.&nbsp; They got what they deserved and the southern flag will never be seen as anything other than a symbol of hatred and racism no matter what justification is given.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thats what happens when your the looser.&nbsp; May that flag burn in hell after i spit on it.&nbsp;</div>  Massachusetts Was The 1st Colony To Legalize Slavery By Statute In 1641. Four New England States, Along With New York ,Were Responsible For The Vast Majority Of The Slave Trade From The Mid 1600's Until It Ended On April 21,1861. <p>On That Date The U.S. Sloop Of War "Saratoga" Captured The Slave Ship "Nightingale" With 900 Slaves Aboard. This Slave Ship Was Owned,Manned And Equipped By The City Of Boston,Massachusetts. The Captain Of The Ship Saratoga Was John Julius Guthrie,A U.S.Naval Officer,Who Soon Resigned And Joined The Confederate Service. This Is A Matter Of Record On File At The Navy Department In Washington. The Last Capture Of A Slaver Was By A Southern Officer And The "Good" People Of Massachusetts Were Engaged In Slave Trading Even At The Beginning Of "The War Between The States" (CIVIL WAR).</p> <p>     The 1st Slave Ship In America "The Desire" Was Fitted Out In Marblehead,Massachusetts. Dubois, A Famous Black Historian Wrote "The American Slave Trade Came To Be Carried On Principally By United States Capital, In United States Ships Officered By United States Citizens And Under The United States Flag."</p> <p>Mr. Cecil Chesterman, A Distinguished English Historian, In His "History Of The United States" Says On This Point, "The North Had Been The Original Slave Traders. The African Slave Trade Had Been Their Particular Industry. Boston Itself Had Risen To Prosperity On The Profits Of The Abominable Traffic." Mr. Chesterman Asks "What Could Exceed The Hypocrisy Of  New England Men Who Reproach The South With Grave Personal Sin In Owning Property Which They Themselves Sold Southerners And The Price Of Which Is Still In Their Pockets".</p> <p>    Thomas Jefferson Introduced Into The Declaration Of Independence In 1776 A Protest Against The Slave Trade Which He Withdrew At The Request Of New England. Every Prominent Man In Virginia At This Period Was In Favor Of Gradual Emancipation And There Were More Than Five Times As Many Members Of Abolition Societies In The South Than In The North.</p> <p>    The "Hartford Courant" Newspaper In July 1916 Said "Northern Rum Had Much To Do With The Extension Of Slavery In The South. Many People In Connecticut And Massachusetts Made Snug Fortunes For Themselves By Sending Rum To Africa To Be Exchanged For Slaves And Then Selling The Slaves To Southern Planters." The"Continental Monthly" Of New York Stated In January 1862 That Boston, New York, and Portland Were The Principal Ports Of Slave Dealers And The Trade Added Much Wealth To The Region.</p> <p>    Furthermore New England Was Responsible For The"Alien And Sedition Acts" Which Would Today Be Considered Extremely Racist. In 1741 the Northern State Of New York Burned Hundreds Black Slaves At The Stake Because They Feared A Slave Rebellion. Later In 1863 During The Draft Riots New York City Residents Hung  Free Blacks From  Light Poles In The City And Burned The Black Childrens Orphanage Because They Did Not Want Blacks To Get Their Jobs While They Were In The Union Army.</p> <p>    The People Of New England have Always Been Hypocrites</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11575 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11575  Massachusetts Was The 1st Colony To Legalize Slavery By Statute In 1641. Four New England States, Along With New York ,Were Responsible For The Vast Majority Of The Slave Trade From The Mid 1600's Until It Ended On April 21,1861. <p>On That Date The U.S. Sloop Of War "Saratoga" Captured The Slave Ship "Nightingale" With 900 Slaves Aboard. This Slave Ship Was Owned,Manned And Equipped By The City Of Boston,Massachusetts. The Captain Of The Ship Saratoga Was John Julius Guthrie,A U.S.Naval Officer,Who Soon Resigned And Joined The Confederate Service. This Is A Matter Of Record On File At The Navy Department In Washington. The Last Capture Of A Slaver Was By A Southern Officer And The "Good" People Of Massachusetts Were Engaged In Slave Trading Even At The Beginning Of "The War Between The States" (CIVIL WAR).</p> <p>     The 1st Slave Ship In America "The Desire" Was Fitted Out In Marblehead,Massachusetts. Dubois, A Famous Black Historian Wrote "The American Slave Trade Came To Be Carried On Principally By United States Capital, In United States Ships Officered By United States Citizens And Under The United States Flag."</p> <p>Mr. Cecil Chesterman, A Distinguished English Historian, In His "History Of The United States" Says On This Point, "The North Had Been The Original Slave Traders. The African Slave Trade Had Been Their Particular Industry. Boston Itself Had Risen To Prosperity On The Profits Of The Abominable Traffic." Mr. Chesterman Asks "What Could Exceed The Hypocrisy Of  New England Men Who Reproach The South With Grave Personal Sin In Owning Property Which They Themselves Sold Southerners And The Price Of Which Is Still In Their Pockets".</p> <p>    Thomas Jefferson Introduced Into The Declaration Of Independence In 1776 A Protest Against The Slave Trade Which He Withdrew At The Request Of New England. Every Prominent Man In Virginia At This Period Was In Favor Of Gradual Emancipation And There Were More Than Five Times As Many Members Of Abolition Societies In The South Than In The North.</p> <p>    The "Hartford Courant" Newspaper In July 1916 Said "Northern Rum Had Much To Do With The Extension Of Slavery In The South. Many People In Connecticut And Massachusetts Made Snug Fortunes For Themselves By Sending Rum To Africa To Be Exchanged For Slaves And Then Selling The Slaves To Southern Planters." The"Continental Monthly" Of New York Stated In January 1862 That Boston, New York, and Portland Were The Principal Ports Of Slave Dealers And The Trade Added Much Wealth To The Region.</p> <p>    Furthermore New England Was Responsible For The"Alien And Sedition Acts" Which Would Today Be Considered Extremely Racist. In 1741 the Northern State Of New York Burned Hundreds Black Slaves At The Stake Because They Feared A Slave Rebellion. Later In 1863 During The Draft Riots New York City Residents Hung  Free Blacks From  Light Poles In The City And Burned The Black Childrens Orphanage Because They Did Not Want Blacks To Get Their Jobs While They Were In The Union Army.</p> <p>    The People Of New England have Always Been Hypocrites</p> <p>To <a href="http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/User/sol2ride"><font color="#005826">sol2ride</font></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Your comment &nbsp;<em>May that flag burn in hell after i spit on it.</em>&nbsp;is hate speech, plain and simple. I love the Confederate flag with all my heart. I'm no racist and i have many black friends who love it as much as I do. I'm no traitor, as I have many combat decorations from the US military. </p> <p>Like most people who make like statements,&nbsp;&nbsp;you speak in generalities and will never even consider the solid easily proven facts to the contrary when presented.&nbsp; I've stated my background in several others posts so I wont repeat it here. </p> <p>Mr. King makes many good points in his posts with facts you can easily prove correct with a simple google search. </p> <p><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">I'll add two more...</span></p> <p><span>If the South fought the war to preserve Slavery then ......why didn't they ratify the &quot;Corwin amendment&quot; (Google it yourself)&nbsp; In a nutshell The Corwin Amendment is a proposed <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/constitutional-amendment" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">amendment</span></a> to the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-constitution" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">United States Constitution</span></a>. <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/ohio" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">Ohio</span></a> <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/republican-party" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">Republican</span></a> Congressman <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-corwin" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">Thomas Corwin</span></a> proposed the amendment during the closing days of the 2nd Session of the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/36th-united-states-congress" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">36th Congress</span></a> in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. The proposed amendment would forbid any attempt to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Federal government to &quot;abolish or interfere&quot; with the &quot;domestic institutions&quot; of the states (a delicate way, in the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/1800s" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">1800s</span></a>, of referring to <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/slavery" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">slavery</span></a>). In particular, the Corwin Amendment was intended to prohibit Congress from banning the practice of slavery in those states whose laws permitted that practice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span>Corwin's resolution emerged as the House of Representatives' version of an earlier, identical proposal in the Senate offered by <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/william-seward" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">William Seward</span></a> of <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New York</st1:place></st1:state>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span>The Corwin Amendment appears officially in Volume 12 of the Statutes at Large at page 251. Its text is as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><em><span>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<o:p></o:p></span></em></p> <p><span>On <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/february-28" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">February 28</span></a>, <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/1861" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">1861</span></a>, the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/house-of-representatives" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">United States House of Representatives</span></a> approved the resolution by a vote of 133&ndash;65 On <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/march-2-1" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">March 2</span></a>, <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/1861" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">1861</span></a>, it was adopted by the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-senate" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">United States Senate</span></a> with a vote of 24&ndash;12&nbsp; Seven Confederate states had already declared their secession and did not vote. The resolution was endorsed by President <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/james-buchanan" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">James Buchanan</span></a><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">.</span></span></p> <span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">The final step to become the 13th amendment to the Constitution was ratification by the states. Numerous northern state legislatures quickly ratified it. &nbsp;No Southern state did and after <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Fort</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Sumter</st1:placename></st1:place> the matter was dropped.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">Even Abraham&nbsp;<a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/lincoln-s-first-inaugural" target="_top"><span style="COLOR: windowtext; TEXT-DECORATION: none; text-underline: none">Lincoln made reference to the Corwin Amendment, in his first inaugural address</span></a>, he&nbsp; declared: &quot;Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.&quot; <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><em><strong>HAD THE SOUTHS ONLY INTEREST BEEN PROTECTING SLAVERY THEY COULD HAVE SIMPLY RATIFIED THE CORWIN AMENDMENT AND SLAVERY WAS PROTECTED IN PERPETUITY.</strong></em></span></p> </span></span> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11586 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11586 <p>To <a href="http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/User/sol2ride"><font color="#005826">sol2ride</font></a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Your comment &nbsp;<em>May that flag burn in hell after i spit on it.</em>&nbsp;is hate speech, plain and simple. I love the Confederate flag with all my heart. I'm no racist and i have many black friends who love it as much as I do. I'm no traitor, as I have many combat decorations from the US military. </p> <p>Like most people who make like statements,&nbsp;&nbsp;you speak in generalities and will never even consider the solid easily proven facts to the contrary when presented.&nbsp; I've stated my background in several others posts so I wont repeat it here. </p> <p>Mr. King makes many good points in his posts with facts you can easily prove correct with a simple google search. </p> <p><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">I'll add two more...</span></p> <p><span>If the South fought the war to preserve Slavery then ......why didn't they ratify the &quot;Corwin amendment&quot; (Google it yourself)&nbsp; In a nutshell The Corwin Amendment is a proposed <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/constitutional-amendment" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">amendment</span></a> to the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-constitution" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">United States Constitution</span></a>. <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/ohio" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">Ohio</span></a> <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/republican-party" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">Republican</span></a> Congressman <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-corwin" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">Thomas Corwin</span></a> proposed the amendment during the closing days of the 2nd Session of the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/36th-united-states-congress" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">36th Congress</span></a> in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. The proposed amendment would forbid any attempt to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Federal government to &quot;abolish or interfere&quot; with the &quot;domestic institutions&quot; of the states (a delicate way, in the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/1800s" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">1800s</span></a>, of referring to <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/slavery" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">slavery</span></a>). In particular, the Corwin Amendment was intended to prohibit Congress from banning the practice of slavery in those states whose laws permitted that practice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span>Corwin's resolution emerged as the House of Representatives' version of an earlier, identical proposal in the Senate offered by <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/william-seward" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">William Seward</span></a> of <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New York</st1:place></st1:state>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span>The Corwin Amendment appears officially in Volume 12 of the Statutes at Large at page 251. Its text is as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><em><span>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<o:p></o:p></span></em></p> <p><span>On <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/february-28" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">February 28</span></a>, <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/1861" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">1861</span></a>, the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/house-of-representatives" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">United States House of Representatives</span></a> approved the resolution by a vote of 133&ndash;65 On <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/march-2-1" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">March 2</span></a>, <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/1861" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">1861</span></a>, it was adopted by the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-senate" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">United States Senate</span></a> with a vote of 24&ndash;12&nbsp; Seven Confederate states had already declared their secession and did not vote. The resolution was endorsed by President <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/james-buchanan" target="_top"><span style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: windowtext; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; TEXT-DECORATION: none; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; text-underline: none">James Buchanan</span></a><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">.</span></span></p> <span><span style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">The final step to become the 13th amendment to the Constitution was ratification by the states. Numerous northern state legislatures quickly ratified it. &nbsp;No Southern state did and after <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Fort</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Sumter</st1:placename></st1:place> the matter was dropped.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">Even Abraham&nbsp;<a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/lincoln-s-first-inaugural" target="_top"><span style="COLOR: windowtext; TEXT-DECORATION: none; text-underline: none">Lincoln made reference to the Corwin Amendment, in his first inaugural address</span></a>, he&nbsp; declared: &quot;Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.&quot; <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><em><strong>HAD THE SOUTHS ONLY INTEREST BEEN PROTECTING SLAVERY THEY COULD HAVE SIMPLY RATIFIED THE CORWIN AMENDMENT AND SLAVERY WAS PROTECTED IN PERPETUITY.</strong></em></span></p> </span></span> <p><font face="Verdana">I would rather fly the flag of the honourable side that lost than fly the flag of the dishonourable side that won.&nbsp; The person who made the silly&nbsp;remark, &quot;May that flag burn in hell after i spit on it,&quot; is one of those who are either ignorant, arrogant, or both.&nbsp; It's unfortunate&nbsp;that, in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, people like that continue to wallow in their favourite myths.&nbsp; It seems that if the truth doesn't taste good, they don't want to hear it.&nbsp; Perhaps they're to be pitied since they're incapable of being deprogrammed&nbsp;of Yankee propaganda.</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana">Like it or not, we WILL continue to&nbsp;fly our Confederate flags because we know they represent Christian constitutional government, resistance to tyranny, and Southern heritage!&nbsp; Like it or not, we WILL continue to strive toward restoring a constitutional republic of sovereign states even if it means the rebirth of the Confederate States of America!&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11670 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11670 <p><font face="Verdana">I would rather fly the flag of the honourable side that lost than fly the flag of the dishonourable side that won.&nbsp; The person who made the silly&nbsp;remark, &quot;May that flag burn in hell after i spit on it,&quot; is one of those who are either ignorant, arrogant, or both.&nbsp; It's unfortunate&nbsp;that, in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, people like that continue to wallow in their favourite myths.&nbsp; It seems that if the truth doesn't taste good, they don't want to hear it.&nbsp; Perhaps they're to be pitied since they're incapable of being deprogrammed&nbsp;of Yankee propaganda.</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana">Like it or not, we WILL continue to&nbsp;fly our Confederate flags because we know they represent Christian constitutional government, resistance to tyranny, and Southern heritage!&nbsp; Like it or not, we WILL continue to strive toward restoring a constitutional republic of sovereign states even if it means the rebirth of the Confederate States of America!&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></p> No matter what <em>you</em> may think about your flag, it still represents all the racist, violent, bigoted and ignorant beliefs of the pre-war South simply <em>because</em> it was the symbol of a country that was willing to fight to retain their rights to hold human slaves.&nbsp;&nbsp; While the flag you say has <em>less</em> genocide and racism under it than that of the country you call home may symbolize different things to you, you should know that the majority of this fine and fair country do NOT hold the same beliefs .&nbsp; And, while slavery is one issue that the Stars and Bars stood for, it also happened to stand for racial bigotry, White Supremacy and federal treason.<br /> <br /> And, while slavery was first made legal in the North, this was due to a <em>British</em> law, as there was no <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States of America</st1:country-region></st1:place> in 1641.&nbsp; You MUST understand that, while the North first declared slavery legal back two hundred years before the War of Separation, they discovered the moral weakness in their ways later, and thus tried to abolish slavery.&nbsp; What the South couldn't understand was they could still maintain an economic basis without slaves.&nbsp; Failing to comprehend this, the Confederates tried to secede.&nbsp; Because of the North's superior numbers of eligible soldiers and also because of their superior industrial strength, among many other reasons, the North won.<br /> <br /> You are also incorrect on your facts stating that the Northern States, under the Stars and Stripes, carried out the slave trade up to the Civil War.&nbsp; In fact, in 1820, the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> banned the act of the overseas slave trade.&nbsp; This basically made the importing of new slaves into the South illegal.&nbsp; Under this law, only slaves born in the South could be sold, and only within the Southern borders.&nbsp; <br /> <br /> You should not be using the actions of post-Civil War United States as a basis for degrading the Stars and Stripes and trying to prove that the Confederate Stars and Bars has done less harm to others.&nbsp; Imagine, if you can, that the War of Secession had been successful and the Confederates had continued to allow slavery to exist.&nbsp; By 1888 they would have been the only country in North America, Europe and <st1:place w:st="on">Asia</st1:place> to still allow the horrid practice of racial slavery.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> <br /> One thing that I can agree with is your comparison between 20th century <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> imperialism and Confederate racial hatred and inequality.&nbsp; The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> <em>did</em> commit some heinous international crimes in the 20th century in acts of &quot;national defense&quot; (and this is still sometimes the guise that we are told in modern times).&nbsp; But to say that those who view the Confederates negatively are ignorant and hypocritical is simply misinformed.&nbsp; These people (your &quot;Yankee's&quot;) were not directly part of imperialistic genocide or the bombings of morale-reducing targets in World War II.&nbsp; They cannot be blamed for the actions of their ancestors <br /> <br /> To <em>WANT</em> to still believe in a flag that was the symbol of slavery and racism is failing to learn from the mistakes of your ancestors.&nbsp; By supporting the Confederate flag, you are doing less to change the connotation associated with it, and doing more to retain and promote it's message of past hatred and degradation.&nbsp; <br /> <br /> Oh, and if the KKK originally used the Stars and Stripes as their flag, why&nbsp; have they changed over to the Stars and Bars?&nbsp; Is it because they agree with you that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> flag is a promoter of international genocide and racism committed during WWII, and they don't like that?&nbsp; NO!&nbsp; It's because THE TRUTH IS THAT THE CONFEDERATE FLAG SYMBOLIZES RACISM, and those that agree with the KKK's violent racism are willing to follow that Confederate flag.&nbsp; No matter how much you try and assure everyone this isn't the case, this is, and always will be, the truth. http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11847 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11847 No matter what <em>you</em> may think about your flag, it still represents all the racist, violent, bigoted and ignorant beliefs of the pre-war South simply <em>because</em> it was the symbol of a country that was willing to fight to retain their rights to hold human slaves.&nbsp;&nbsp; While the flag you say has <em>less</em> genocide and racism under it than that of the country you call home may symbolize different things to you, you should know that the majority of this fine and fair country do NOT hold the same beliefs .&nbsp; And, while slavery is one issue that the Stars and Bars stood for, it also happened to stand for racial bigotry, White Supremacy and federal treason.<br /> <br /> And, while slavery was first made legal in the North, this was due to a <em>British</em> law, as there was no <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States of America</st1:country-region></st1:place> in 1641.&nbsp; You MUST understand that, while the North first declared slavery legal back two hundred years before the War of Separation, they discovered the moral weakness in their ways later, and thus tried to abolish slavery.&nbsp; What the South couldn't understand was they could still maintain an economic basis without slaves.&nbsp; Failing to comprehend this, the Confederates tried to secede.&nbsp; Because of the North's superior numbers of eligible soldiers and also because of their superior industrial strength, among many other reasons, the North won.<br /> <br /> You are also incorrect on your facts stating that the Northern States, under the Stars and Stripes, carried out the slave trade up to the Civil War.&nbsp; In fact, in 1820, the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> banned the act of the overseas slave trade.&nbsp; This basically made the importing of new slaves into the South illegal.&nbsp; Under this law, only slaves born in the South could be sold, and only within the Southern borders.&nbsp; <br /> <br /> You should not be using the actions of post-Civil War United States as a basis for degrading the Stars and Stripes and trying to prove that the Confederate Stars and Bars has done less harm to others.&nbsp; Imagine, if you can, that the War of Secession had been successful and the Confederates had continued to allow slavery to exist.&nbsp; By 1888 they would have been the only country in North America, Europe and <st1:place w:st="on">Asia</st1:place> to still allow the horrid practice of racial slavery.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> <br /> One thing that I can agree with is your comparison between 20th century <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> imperialism and Confederate racial hatred and inequality.&nbsp; The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> <em>did</em> commit some heinous international crimes in the 20th century in acts of &quot;national defense&quot; (and this is still sometimes the guise that we are told in modern times).&nbsp; But to say that those who view the Confederates negatively are ignorant and hypocritical is simply misinformed.&nbsp; These people (your &quot;Yankee's&quot;) were not directly part of imperialistic genocide or the bombings of morale-reducing targets in World War II.&nbsp; They cannot be blamed for the actions of their ancestors <br /> <br /> To <em>WANT</em> to still believe in a flag that was the symbol of slavery and racism is failing to learn from the mistakes of your ancestors.&nbsp; By supporting the Confederate flag, you are doing less to change the connotation associated with it, and doing more to retain and promote it's message of past hatred and degradation.&nbsp; <br /> <br /> Oh, and if the KKK originally used the Stars and Stripes as their flag, why&nbsp; have they changed over to the Stars and Bars?&nbsp; Is it because they agree with you that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> flag is a promoter of international genocide and racism committed during WWII, and they don't like that?&nbsp; NO!&nbsp; It's because THE TRUTH IS THAT THE CONFEDERATE FLAG SYMBOLIZES RACISM, and those that agree with the KKK's violent racism are willing to follow that Confederate flag.&nbsp; No matter how much you try and assure everyone this isn't the case, this is, and always will be, the truth. <p>The Confederate flag represents Limited Constitutional Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. Thus it represents the same principles as the Betsy Ross U.S.flag--the principles America was founded upon. As America experiments with Globalism, Socialism, and Secular Humanism it is important for  patriotic American's to fly the Confederate flag as a reminder of these basic principles. America has 2 choices--1.Reclaim our heritage or 2.we will eventually surrender our Constitution and Sovereignty to the New World Order--a Godless Socialist United Nations. Many black Americans have been indoctrinated by Northern Liberal Marxist Socialists to view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism and bigotry. They are being used and manipulated for political purposes to assist in the conversion of America to socialism and secular humanism. The infamous Communist Karl Marx said "A people separated from their heritage are easily persuaded". This is the real reason they want to destroy and ban Confederate heritage and symbols which are 180 degrees diametrically opposed to Socialism and Secular Humanism. They are destroying the principles and values of America's founding fathers.The Communist Lenin coined the term "useful idiots". Many white liberals fit this catagory as well as Southern politicians who are helping destroy Confederate principles, heritage, and symbols. White Southern Christians who fly the Confederate flag are not the enemy of responsible black Americans who are working to better themselves. It is true that KKK and other groups have misused, misrepresented, and abused the Confederate flag but this should not invalidate the true meaning of this honorable flag in the minds of educated knowledgeable Americans. </p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11849 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11849 <p>The Confederate flag represents Limited Constitutional Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. Thus it represents the same principles as the Betsy Ross U.S.flag--the principles America was founded upon. As America experiments with Globalism, Socialism, and Secular Humanism it is important for  patriotic American's to fly the Confederate flag as a reminder of these basic principles. America has 2 choices--1.Reclaim our heritage or 2.we will eventually surrender our Constitution and Sovereignty to the New World Order--a Godless Socialist United Nations. Many black Americans have been indoctrinated by Northern Liberal Marxist Socialists to view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism and bigotry. They are being used and manipulated for political purposes to assist in the conversion of America to socialism and secular humanism. The infamous Communist Karl Marx said "A people separated from their heritage are easily persuaded". This is the real reason they want to destroy and ban Confederate heritage and symbols which are 180 degrees diametrically opposed to Socialism and Secular Humanism. They are destroying the principles and values of America's founding fathers.The Communist Lenin coined the term "useful idiots". Many white liberals fit this catagory as well as Southern politicians who are helping destroy Confederate principles, heritage, and symbols. White Southern Christians who fly the Confederate flag are not the enemy of responsible black Americans who are working to better themselves. It is true that KKK and other groups have misused, misrepresented, and abused the Confederate flag but this should not invalidate the true meaning of this honorable flag in the minds of educated knowledgeable Americans. </p> <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">The Confederate flag represents Limited Constitutional Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. It represents the dignity, honor, courage, and other noble qualities of the great men of the South and The Confederate States of America who fought for Southern Independence. These men include Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jonathan &quot;Stonewall&quot; Jackson and the 600,000 Confederates who fought under this flag against Northern agression and tyranny. This flag belongs to us who are their descendants. The various hate groups who misuse, abuse, and misrepresent this Honorable Flag are imposters. We disdain and resent the negative image that they along with Hollywood, and the socialist news media have given our flag.&nbsp; I solicit your understanding and tolerance. I and thousands of other legitimate descendants of honorable Confederate veterans are working to reestablish the true meaning of our flag in the minds of the American public. Please read the letter posted below from former American President Eisenhower regarding Lee.</font> <font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font></font><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Eisenhower letter regarding Robert E. Lee <br /> President Dwight Eisenhower wrote the following letter in response to one he received dated August 1, 1960, from Leon W. Scott, a dentist in New Rochelle, New York. Scott&rsquo;s letter reads:<br /> &ldquo;Dear Mr. President: <br /> &ldquo;At the Republican Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee. <br /> &ldquo;I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me. <br /> &ldquo;The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being hailed as one of our heroes. <br /> &ldquo;Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem? <br /> Sincerely yours, <br /> &ldquo;Leon W. Scott&rdquo;<br /> Eisenhower's response, written on White House letterhead on August 9, 1960 reads as follows:<br /> August 9, 1960 <br /> Dear Dr. Scott: <br /> Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted. <br /> General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history. <br /> From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee&rsquo;s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation&rsquo;s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained. <br /> Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Dwight D. Eisenhower</font><br /> <br /> </font> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11853 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11853 <font face="Times New Roman" size="3">The Confederate flag represents Limited Constitutional Federal Government, States Rights, Resistance to Tyranny, and Christian Values and Principles. It represents the dignity, honor, courage, and other noble qualities of the great men of the South and The Confederate States of America who fought for Southern Independence. These men include Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jonathan &quot;Stonewall&quot; Jackson and the 600,000 Confederates who fought under this flag against Northern agression and tyranny. This flag belongs to us who are their descendants. The various hate groups who misuse, abuse, and misrepresent this Honorable Flag are imposters. We disdain and resent the negative image that they along with Hollywood, and the socialist news media have given our flag.&nbsp; I solicit your understanding and tolerance. I and thousands of other legitimate descendants of honorable Confederate veterans are working to reestablish the true meaning of our flag in the minds of the American public. Please read the letter posted below from former American President Eisenhower regarding Lee.</font> <font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font></font><font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Eisenhower letter regarding Robert E. Lee <br /> President Dwight Eisenhower wrote the following letter in response to one he received dated August 1, 1960, from Leon W. Scott, a dentist in New Rochelle, New York. Scott&rsquo;s letter reads:<br /> &ldquo;Dear Mr. President: <br /> &ldquo;At the Republican Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee. <br /> &ldquo;I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me. <br /> &ldquo;The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being hailed as one of our heroes. <br /> &ldquo;Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem? <br /> Sincerely yours, <br /> &ldquo;Leon W. Scott&rdquo;<br /> Eisenhower's response, written on White House letterhead on August 9, 1960 reads as follows:<br /> August 9, 1960 <br /> Dear Dr. Scott: <br /> Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted. <br /> General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history. <br /> From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee&rsquo;s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation&rsquo;s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained. <br /> Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Dwight D. Eisenhower</font><br /> <br /> </font> Traitor, according to Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary:<br /> &nbsp;One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to its enemy, or any fort or place entrusted to his defense, or who surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; or one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.<br /> <br /> Treason, according to Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary:<br /> Treason is the highest crime of a civil nature of which a man can be guilty. Its signification is different in different countries. In general, it is the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.<br /> <br /> Traitor, according to The Random House College Dictionary 1984:<br /> &nbsp; A person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust; a person who betrays his country by violating his allegiance<br /> <br /> Treason, according to The Random House College Dictionary 1984:<br /> &nbsp; violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state<br /> <hr width="100%" size="2" /> &nbsp; So, here are the definitions of treason and traitor. We, as Confederates, members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Southerners, Southrons, oftentimes read/hear of our Confederate ancestors referred to as traitors. Most of the time, we wince, get our feelings hurt, or as the P/C crowd says &quot;offended&quot;, and move on.&nbsp;<big><font id="role_document" color="#000000" size="2"><big>&nbsp; Here is why we are not the descendants of traitors. First, the Southern States democratically withdrew from the voluntary union of States, based upon a compact they had made with each other to guide their &quot;common government&quot; and to help them settle any disagreement they may have with each other. This &quot;compact&quot; is called the Constitution of the United States of America. Without now going into the details of this &quot;compact&quot; suffice to say these were &quot;the rules&quot; by which all signatories agreed to live by, as regard the other States. And, they understood that if the &quot;compact&quot; was broken on one point, then the whole thing was broken. <br /> &nbsp; Was George Washington a &quot;traitor&quot;? As a British subject, he most certainly was. </big></font></big><em>The English law, first clearly stated in the Statute of Treasons (1350) included this, &quot;and to wage war against the kingdom&quot;. </em>Source: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/treason">http://www.answers.com/topic/treason</a>. Also, it included this, <em>&quot;prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death.&quot; </em>So, clearly, the whole of the 13 British colonies that were established in the &quot;New World&quot; and constituting what we now call &quot;the 13 original States&quot;, were guilty of treason. Because they did wage war against the kingdom, they did levy war against the king.<br /> &nbsp; Are we to hold our Confederate ancestors to the same standard? Did they &quot;wage war against the kingdom&quot;, i.e. the U.S. government? Did they &quot;levy war against the king&quot;, i.e. president Lincoln? According to Article 3 of the Constitution it thus provides that treason shall consist only in levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies and that conviction may be had only on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court. By that definition, are Mexicans traitors? Because of a little incident in U.S. history referred to as &quot;the Mexican War, 1846-1848&quot;? What about the Germans who waged war against the U.S. in 1917-18 and again in 1942-45? What about the Vietnamese, the Iraqis? Obviously, these countries' people have given aid and comfort to our enemies.<br /> &nbsp; So, is this starting to get ridiculous? Of course it is. So is calling our Confederate ancestors &quot;traitors&quot;. Because, the various Confederate soldiers, if they had been in the employ of the U.S. government, if they had been soldiers and sailors of the U.S. army and navy, they resigned their places so that their honour and integrity may be maintained. At that point, they became private citisens of their respective States, not soldiers of the United States armed forces. Therefore, the stain of traitor could not be levied against them. The United States army took up arms against the sovereign States who had just declared their individual independence. As men who had military experience, they offered their swords, their very lives, in the defence of their States.<br /> &nbsp; Those very States who sincerely believed that their future, as sovereigns, lay out of this union with an outlaw, rogue nation, and instead, belonged with the several Southern States, all of whom had kindred spirits, the spirits of liberty. They democratically withdrew from the voluntary union of sovereign States, then joined together, in common cause, a new union, a Confederate union. All of this was done within the highest ideals of the democratic process.<br /> &nbsp; Treason? No!<br /> &nbsp; But, was there &quot;treason&quot;? Was there &quot;rebellion&quot; in the U.S. in the 1860's? Are not we the ones who point out it was the president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who violated his oath of office by violating the Constitution of these United States? These are ten distinct violations of the Constitution by Abraham Lincoln: Coercion in 1861. Article IV.&mdash;&nbsp; Laws of Neutrality -- Trent Affair. Article VI, Clause 2 -- Violation of International Law.&mdash;&nbsp; Writ of Habeas Corpus Suspended. Article I, Section IX, Clause 2.&mdash; War Declared Without the Consent of Congress, 1861. Article I, Section VIII, Clauses 11, 12.&mdash;&nbsp; Emancipation Proclamation. Article IV, Section III, Clause 2.&mdash;&nbsp; West Virginia Made a State. Article IV, Section III, Clause 1.&mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp; Freedom of Speech Denied. Vallandigham Imprisoned in Ohio. Amendment One.&mdash; Blockading Parts of States that Were Held by the Federal Government to be Still in the Union.&mdash; Liberty of the Press Denied. Amendment One.&mdash;&nbsp; Violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. Article IV, Section II, Clause 3.<br /> &nbsp; With all these clear and distinct violations of the Constitution by the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces of the United States of America, would it be a stretch at all to declare that it was the yankee soldiers who were the traitors? By virtue of and connection to, their highest leader? If it be their leader who leads them into the paths of unrighteousness, to do harm to the Constitution, to do harm to the nation, to do harm to its citizens, can they, the yankee soldier, be called the good guy, the patriot,&nbsp; the &quot;American hero&quot;? Was it not the yankee soldier who rounded up the old men, women and children of&nbsp; Roswell and New Manchester, Georgia onto train cattle cars and shipped them north only to dump them off north of the Ohio River to be on their own? Was it not the yankee soldier who killed more than fifty thousand Southern civilians in a four year war, almost as many American soldiers who died in Vietnam in a fifteen year war? Was it not yankee soldiers who destroyed the Shenadoah Valley, causing the yankee general to boast that a crow flying over would need to carry provisions?<br /> &nbsp; I could go on and on about the treachery of the yankee soldier. <br /> &nbsp; Therefore, I conclude that for now on, we refer to the yankee soldier as the traitors. No more will our enemies call us traitors, by extension, because we honour our brave Confederate/American ancestors, who stepped up to do the right thing, placed their lives on the line in the defence of the ideals of the Founding Fathers. No more will their base charges of treason go unanswered, no more will they ridicule their bravery, scorn their patriotism and laugh at their motives without being challenged. Remember my friends, if the whole world believes in wrong, does that still make right? http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11855 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11855 Traitor, according to Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary:<br /> &nbsp;One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to its enemy, or any fort or place entrusted to his defense, or who surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; or one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.<br /> <br /> Treason, according to Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary:<br /> Treason is the highest crime of a civil nature of which a man can be guilty. Its signification is different in different countries. In general, it is the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.<br /> <br /> Traitor, according to The Random House College Dictionary 1984:<br /> &nbsp; A person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust; a person who betrays his country by violating his allegiance<br /> <br /> Treason, according to The Random House College Dictionary 1984:<br /> &nbsp; violation by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or to the state<br /> <hr width="100%" size="2" /> &nbsp; So, here are the definitions of treason and traitor. We, as Confederates, members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Southerners, Southrons, oftentimes read/hear of our Confederate ancestors referred to as traitors. Most of the time, we wince, get our feelings hurt, or as the P/C crowd says &quot;offended&quot;, and move on.&nbsp;<big><font id="role_document" color="#000000" size="2"><big>&nbsp; Here is why we are not the descendants of traitors. First, the Southern States democratically withdrew from the voluntary union of States, based upon a compact they had made with each other to guide their &quot;common government&quot; and to help them settle any disagreement they may have with each other. This &quot;compact&quot; is called the Constitution of the United States of America. Without now going into the details of this &quot;compact&quot; suffice to say these were &quot;the rules&quot; by which all signatories agreed to live by, as regard the other States. And, they understood that if the &quot;compact&quot; was broken on one point, then the whole thing was broken. <br /> &nbsp; Was George Washington a &quot;traitor&quot;? As a British subject, he most certainly was. </big></font></big><em>The English law, first clearly stated in the Statute of Treasons (1350) included this, &quot;and to wage war against the kingdom&quot;. </em>Source: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.answers.com/topic/treason">http://www.answers.com/topic/treason</a>. Also, it included this, <em>&quot;prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death.&quot; </em>So, clearly, the whole of the 13 British colonies that were established in the &quot;New World&quot; and constituting what we now call &quot;the 13 original States&quot;, were guilty of treason. Because they did wage war against the kingdom, they did levy war against the king.<br /> &nbsp; Are we to hold our Confederate ancestors to the same standard? Did they &quot;wage war against the kingdom&quot;, i.e. the U.S. government? Did they &quot;levy war against the king&quot;, i.e. president Lincoln? According to Article 3 of the Constitution it thus provides that treason shall consist only in levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies and that conviction may be had only on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court. By that definition, are Mexicans traitors? Because of a little incident in U.S. history referred to as &quot;the Mexican War, 1846-1848&quot;? What about the Germans who waged war against the U.S. in 1917-18 and again in 1942-45? What about the Vietnamese, the Iraqis? Obviously, these countries' people have given aid and comfort to our enemies.<br /> &nbsp; So, is this starting to get ridiculous? Of course it is. So is calling our Confederate ancestors &quot;traitors&quot;. Because, the various Confederate soldiers, if they had been in the employ of the U.S. government, if they had been soldiers and sailors of the U.S. army and navy, they resigned their places so that their honour and integrity may be maintained. At that point, they became private citisens of their respective States, not soldiers of the United States armed forces. Therefore, the stain of traitor could not be levied against them. The United States army took up arms against the sovereign States who had just declared their individual independence. As men who had military experience, they offered their swords, their very lives, in the defence of their States.<br /> &nbsp; Those very States who sincerely believed that their future, as sovereigns, lay out of this union with an outlaw, rogue nation, and instead, belonged with the several Southern States, all of whom had kindred spirits, the spirits of liberty. They democratically withdrew from the voluntary union of sovereign States, then joined together, in common cause, a new union, a Confederate union. All of this was done within the highest ideals of the democratic process.<br /> &nbsp; Treason? No!<br /> &nbsp; But, was there &quot;treason&quot;? Was there &quot;rebellion&quot; in the U.S. in the 1860's? Are not we the ones who point out it was the president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who violated his oath of office by violating the Constitution of these United States? These are ten distinct violations of the Constitution by Abraham Lincoln: Coercion in 1861. Article IV.&mdash;&nbsp; Laws of Neutrality -- Trent Affair. Article VI, Clause 2 -- Violation of International Law.&mdash;&nbsp; Writ of Habeas Corpus Suspended. Article I, Section IX, Clause 2.&mdash; War Declared Without the Consent of Congress, 1861. Article I, Section VIII, Clauses 11, 12.&mdash;&nbsp; Emancipation Proclamation. Article IV, Section III, Clause 2.&mdash;&nbsp; West Virginia Made a State. Article IV, Section III, Clause 1.&mdash;&nbsp;&nbsp; Freedom of Speech Denied. Vallandigham Imprisoned in Ohio. Amendment One.&mdash; Blockading Parts of States that Were Held by the Federal Government to be Still in the Union.&mdash; Liberty of the Press Denied. Amendment One.&mdash;&nbsp; Violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. Article IV, Section II, Clause 3.<br /> &nbsp; With all these clear and distinct violations of the Constitution by the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces of the United States of America, would it be a stretch at all to declare that it was the yankee soldiers who were the traitors? By virtue of and connection to, their highest leader? If it be their leader who leads them into the paths of unrighteousness, to do harm to the Constitution, to do harm to the nation, to do harm to its citizens, can they, the yankee soldier, be called the good guy, the patriot,&nbsp; the &quot;American hero&quot;? Was it not the yankee soldier who rounded up the old men, women and children of&nbsp; Roswell and New Manchester, Georgia onto train cattle cars and shipped them north only to dump them off north of the Ohio River to be on their own? Was it not the yankee soldier who killed more than fifty thousand Southern civilians in a four year war, almost as many American soldiers who died in Vietnam in a fifteen year war? Was it not yankee soldiers who destroyed the Shenadoah Valley, causing the yankee general to boast that a crow flying over would need to carry provisions?<br /> &nbsp; I could go on and on about the treachery of the yankee soldier. <br /> &nbsp; Therefore, I conclude that for now on, we refer to the yankee soldier as the traitors. No more will our enemies call us traitors, by extension, because we honour our brave Confederate/American ancestors, who stepped up to do the right thing, placed their lives on the line in the defence of the ideals of the Founding Fathers. No more will their base charges of treason go unanswered, no more will they ridicule their bravery, scorn their patriotism and laugh at their motives without being challenged. Remember my friends, if the whole world believes in wrong, does that still make right? <div><font size="4"> <p>&nbsp;The &quot;Honest Abe&quot; Abraham Lincoln myth needs to be dispelled.</p> <p>Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a <br /> powerful central government. Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas <br /> corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded <br /> Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial <br /> some 38,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of <br /> newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers <br /> destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; <br /> nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and <br /> West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, <br /> an act that Lincoln&rsquo;s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; <br /> ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a <br /> member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln&rsquo;s unconstitutional <br /> behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of <br /> the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.<br /> <br /> A New Orleans man was executed for merely taking down a U.S. flag; ministers were imprisoned for failing to say a prayer for Abraham Lincoln, and Fort Lafayette in New York harbor became known as &quot;The American Bastille&quot; since it held so many thousands of Northern political prisoners. All of this was catalogued decades ago in such books as James G. Randall&rsquo;s <u>Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln</u> and Dean Sprague&rsquo;s <u>Freedom Under Lincoln</u>.<br /> <br /> &quot;This amazing disregard for the Constitution,&quot; wrote historian Clinton <br /> Rossiter,&quot; was &quot;considered by nobody as legal.&quot; &quot;One man was the government of the United States,&quot; says Rossiter. Lincoln was an absolute dictator. Lincoln used his dictatorial powers to suppress all Northern <br /> opposition to his illegal and unconstitutional acts. This is not even <br /> controversial, and is painstakingly catalogued in the above-mentioned books <br /> as well as in <u>The Real Lincoln</u> (a new book by Thomas J. DiLorenzo).</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </font></div> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11856 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11856 <div><font size="4"> <p>&nbsp;The &quot;Honest Abe&quot; Abraham Lincoln myth needs to be dispelled.</p> <p>Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a <br /> powerful central government. Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas <br /> corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded <br /> Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial <br /> some 38,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of <br /> newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers <br /> destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; <br /> nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and <br /> West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, <br /> an act that Lincoln&rsquo;s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; <br /> ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a <br /> member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln&rsquo;s unconstitutional <br /> behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of <br /> the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.<br /> <br /> A New Orleans man was executed for merely taking down a U.S. flag; ministers were imprisoned for failing to say a prayer for Abraham Lincoln, and Fort Lafayette in New York harbor became known as &quot;The American Bastille&quot; since it held so many thousands of Northern political prisoners. All of this was catalogued decades ago in such books as James G. Randall&rsquo;s <u>Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln</u> and Dean Sprague&rsquo;s <u>Freedom Under Lincoln</u>.<br /> <br /> &quot;This amazing disregard for the Constitution,&quot; wrote historian Clinton <br /> Rossiter,&quot; was &quot;considered by nobody as legal.&quot; &quot;One man was the government of the United States,&quot; says Rossiter. Lincoln was an absolute dictator. Lincoln used his dictatorial powers to suppress all Northern <br /> opposition to his illegal and unconstitutional acts. This is not even <br /> controversial, and is painstakingly catalogued in the above-mentioned books <br /> as well as in <u>The Real Lincoln</u> (a new book by Thomas J. DiLorenzo).</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </font></div> <div class="post"><a name="113607811349375764"></a> <h3 class="post-title">Constitution or Union? Why the Idea of the Confederacy is Crucial to American Liberty </h3> <div class="post-body"> <div style="CLEAR: both"></div> <div>No symbol in so-called &quot;polite, mainstream&quot; America is more publicly reviled than that of the confederate battle cross. No public figure in any walk of American life could display confederate symbols without being savaged in the press and suffering significant career damage. In some circles, confederate symbolism probably ranks slightly above bestiality in terms of acceptability, although I am sure than in San Francisco, this order would be reversed. In the 2004 presidential campaign. Al Sharpton called the confederate flag &quot;The American Swastika&quot;. This statement is remarkable. Remarkable because the Confederacy; a decentralized constitutional republic fighting a strictly defensive struggle against invasion, was the polar opposite of Nazi Germany, a completely centralized absolute dictatorship bent on military conquest. But even more remarkable is that not a single account in the mainstream press highlighted this inaccuracy. And even more remarkable, it is almost certain, had a major public figure or publication done so, they would have been severely attacked for it. </div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Campaigns all across America have resulted in removing the battle flag from the state capitol in Columbia, a city burned to the ground by Sherman, removing the battle cross emblem from the Georgia state flag, and countless less publicized suppressions of confederate symbolism, such as the removal of the confederate flag from confederate soldiers' graves in Charlotte's Elmwood cemetery. The Confederacy, has in fact, been the victim of one of history's most successful smear campaigns. Certainly, part is due to the old truism &quot;the victors write the history&quot; and much is due to heightened racial sensitivities in our current era, in which the Confederacy, which lasted 4 years, is seen as the principal villain in North American slavery, an institution which lasted more than 200 years in both north and south. But I believe there are more profound reasons for the extreme contempt heaped on the Confederacy. And these reasons strike at the very core of the reality behind the present day regime in the United States.</div> <div><br /> Large corporations sometimes clean up their balance sheets by spinning off a subsidiary to which they assign unwanted operations or debts. In a real sense., the dominant interpreters of American history have used the Confederacy as their undesirable historical subsidiary, to which they have assigned antiquated concepts such as slavery, disunion, and states rights. By &quot;spinning off&quot; the Confederacy, they are able to purify and transform the United States into a modern and progressive social democracy. It is very useful in this interpretation to package the evil of slavery with the other concepts. This helps to taint these ideas and prevent close examination of their worth. But their efforts are only successful if one accepts the superficial view of history taught in public school &quot;social studies&quot; classes or presented by the all pervasive supporters of the current American regime. In these presentations, much of the great intellectual foundation of the early republic, such as the Federalist papers and their anti-federalist counterparts, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and the writings of John C. Calhoun, such as his Disquisition on Government, Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the Fort Hill address, are ignored in a flagrant sin of omission. Of course. most people do accept this superficial treatment, and so the campaign is very effective.</div> <div><br /> So why does it matter? Why spend intellectual capital on arguing the rectitude of the Confederate cause 140 years after Appomattox? Many would argue with justification that if you are arguing for liberty, you encounter much opposition by supporting the confederate cause, and it would be more expedient to ignore it. But I can make a stronger case that the constitutional issues surrounding the secession of the southern states, Lincoln's destructive and brutal suppression of secession, and reconstruction policies and constitutional amendments, are so fundamental to understanding the erosion of liberty and expansion of federal power, that they cannot be ignored. </div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The other facet of this argument is the Lincoln myth. The metamorphosis of a shrewd partisan operative into a national demigod sanctified violation of the constitution as an acceptable expedient. The Union is more important than the Constitution. If the great and good Abe Lincoln did it, it must be right. For example, I saw former New York governor Mario Cuomo defending a present day action of questionable constitutionality by referring to Lincoln's expedient violations of the same. If Lincoln's &quot;saving the union&quot; and &quot;freeing the slaves&quot; can justify the violations of the constitution, that gives a pass to later Presidents, congresses, and federal courts to do the same. If Lincoln and the Union cause in the War for Southern Independence are axiomatically right, then all arguments for limited federal government and strict adherence to the constitution will eventually fail. Those of us who believe that the constitutional compact of limited government is<span style="FONT-STYLE: italic"> the essential </span>characteristic of American liberty realize that freedom is not guaranteed by a taxing, regulating, and warring government. It is guaranteed by the ability to &quot;just say no&quot; to such a government though nullification or secession. And a vigorous defense of the Confederate cause as among the purest expressions of true American liberty and patriotism is essential. This will not be easy and will engender ferocious opposition. We live in an America where even so-called conservatives promote the Pledge of Allegiance, a loyalty oath written by a 19th century socialist, swearing an oath to &quot;one nation, indivisible&quot; as the guarantor of &quot;liberty and justice for all&quot;. This &quot;my country, right or wrong&quot; mentality would have been alien to the founding fathers who saw the constitution as a contract between the states, not a sacred blood oath binding one to obedience to a national regime. Modern day liberals and conservatives both promote the use of federal force and confiscation to achieve their goals, they merely disagree on the details. In the final analysis, it is a question of the primacy of Constitution or Union. Do constitutional limits on government trump a desire to preserve &quot;Union&quot; at all costs? Or does the need to preserve the &quot;Union&quot;, i.e., the central government, trump constitutional guarantees of liberty? </div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>There is little question as to where the first American patriots would stand.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> </div> </div> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11857 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11857 <div class="post"><a name="113607811349375764"></a> <h3 class="post-title">Constitution or Union? Why the Idea of the Confederacy is Crucial to American Liberty </h3> <div class="post-body"> <div style="CLEAR: both"></div> <div>No symbol in so-called &quot;polite, mainstream&quot; America is more publicly reviled than that of the confederate battle cross. No public figure in any walk of American life could display confederate symbols without being savaged in the press and suffering significant career damage. In some circles, confederate symbolism probably ranks slightly above bestiality in terms of acceptability, although I am sure than in San Francisco, this order would be reversed. In the 2004 presidential campaign. Al Sharpton called the confederate flag &quot;The American Swastika&quot;. This statement is remarkable. Remarkable because the Confederacy; a decentralized constitutional republic fighting a strictly defensive struggle against invasion, was the polar opposite of Nazi Germany, a completely centralized absolute dictatorship bent on military conquest. But even more remarkable is that not a single account in the mainstream press highlighted this inaccuracy. And even more remarkable, it is almost certain, had a major public figure or publication done so, they would have been severely attacked for it. </div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Campaigns all across America have resulted in removing the battle flag from the state capitol in Columbia, a city burned to the ground by Sherman, removing the battle cross emblem from the Georgia state flag, and countless less publicized suppressions of confederate symbolism, such as the removal of the confederate flag from confederate soldiers' graves in Charlotte's Elmwood cemetery. The Confederacy, has in fact, been the victim of one of history's most successful smear campaigns. Certainly, part is due to the old truism &quot;the victors write the history&quot; and much is due to heightened racial sensitivities in our current era, in which the Confederacy, which lasted 4 years, is seen as the principal villain in North American slavery, an institution which lasted more than 200 years in both north and south. But I believe there are more profound reasons for the extreme contempt heaped on the Confederacy. And these reasons strike at the very core of the reality behind the present day regime in the United States.</div> <div><br /> Large corporations sometimes clean up their balance sheets by spinning off a subsidiary to which they assign unwanted operations or debts. In a real sense., the dominant interpreters of American history have used the Confederacy as their undesirable historical subsidiary, to which they have assigned antiquated concepts such as slavery, disunion, and states rights. By &quot;spinning off&quot; the Confederacy, they are able to purify and transform the United States into a modern and progressive social democracy. It is very useful in this interpretation to package the evil of slavery with the other concepts. This helps to taint these ideas and prevent close examination of their worth. But their efforts are only successful if one accepts the superficial view of history taught in public school &quot;social studies&quot; classes or presented by the all pervasive supporters of the current American regime. In these presentations, much of the great intellectual foundation of the early republic, such as the Federalist papers and their anti-federalist counterparts, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and the writings of John C. Calhoun, such as his Disquisition on Government, Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States, and the Fort Hill address, are ignored in a flagrant sin of omission. Of course. most people do accept this superficial treatment, and so the campaign is very effective.</div> <div><br /> So why does it matter? Why spend intellectual capital on arguing the rectitude of the Confederate cause 140 years after Appomattox? Many would argue with justification that if you are arguing for liberty, you encounter much opposition by supporting the confederate cause, and it would be more expedient to ignore it. But I can make a stronger case that the constitutional issues surrounding the secession of the southern states, Lincoln's destructive and brutal suppression of secession, and reconstruction policies and constitutional amendments, are so fundamental to understanding the erosion of liberty and expansion of federal power, that they cannot be ignored. </div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The other facet of this argument is the Lincoln myth. The metamorphosis of a shrewd partisan operative into a national demigod sanctified violation of the constitution as an acceptable expedient. The Union is more important than the Constitution. If the great and good Abe Lincoln did it, it must be right. For example, I saw former New York governor Mario Cuomo defending a present day action of questionable constitutionality by referring to Lincoln's expedient violations of the same. If Lincoln's &quot;saving the union&quot; and &quot;freeing the slaves&quot; can justify the violations of the constitution, that gives a pass to later Presidents, congresses, and federal courts to do the same. If Lincoln and the Union cause in the War for Southern Independence are axiomatically right, then all arguments for limited federal government and strict adherence to the constitution will eventually fail. Those of us who believe that the constitutional compact of limited government is<span style="FONT-STYLE: italic"> the essential </span>characteristic of American liberty realize that freedom is not guaranteed by a taxing, regulating, and warring government. It is guaranteed by the ability to &quot;just say no&quot; to such a government though nullification or secession. And a vigorous defense of the Confederate cause as among the purest expressions of true American liberty and patriotism is essential. This will not be easy and will engender ferocious opposition. We live in an America where even so-called conservatives promote the Pledge of Allegiance, a loyalty oath written by a 19th century socialist, swearing an oath to &quot;one nation, indivisible&quot; as the guarantor of &quot;liberty and justice for all&quot;. This &quot;my country, right or wrong&quot; mentality would have been alien to the founding fathers who saw the constitution as a contract between the states, not a sacred blood oath binding one to obedience to a national regime. Modern day liberals and conservatives both promote the use of federal force and confiscation to achieve their goals, they merely disagree on the details. In the final analysis, it is a question of the primacy of Constitution or Union. Do constitutional limits on government trump a desire to preserve &quot;Union&quot; at all costs? Or does the need to preserve the &quot;Union&quot;, i.e., the central government, trump constitutional guarantees of liberty? </div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>There is little question as to where the first American patriots would stand.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> </div> </div> <div> <h3 class="post-title">LINCOLN'S SOCIALIST LEGIONS </h3> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div style="CLEAR: both"></div> Yankees and Socialists--Birds of a Feather<br /> <br /> by Al Benson Jr.<br /> <br /> <br /> During the War of Northern Aggression it has been reported that over 180,000 Germans fought in the Union armies. This number was buttressed by thousands of Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs and Irish. The majority of these were probably honest, hardworking people, yet the question must be asked--with a population of around 22 million in the North as opposed to 9 million in the South--why did the North have so many foreign troops in her armies?<br /> <br /> Francis Springer, in his book &quot;War for What?&quot; puts the number even higher. He has noted: &quot;It seems strange that the North, with such vast human resources, should find it necessary to resort to recruiting men abroad. The 1860 census shows 4,100,000 foreign born in this country, mostly located in the North, but there were 500,000 men in the Northern army of foreign birth, or 90,000 more than 10% of the foreign population, indicating that 90,000 Northern soldiers, and probably more, were recruited abroad.&quot;<br /> <br /> Author William Burton, in his book &quot;Melting Pot Soldiers&quot; deals with the foreign soldiers in the Yankee armies. He quotes a correspondent for the &quot;London Daily Telegraph&quot; as stating that the foreign soldiers in the Union armies has scant use for the abolitionists and their &quot;holy crusade&quot;. German immigrant Valentin Bechler, according to Burton, told his wife &quot;I wish all abolitionists were in Hell.&quot;<br /> <br /> One of the most carefully concealed facts over the decades about Mr. Lincoln's armies is that he had an amazing number of European socialists under uniform during the War. Only recently has information regarding this started to surface. Up until a few years ago it was one of the most studiously ignored facts and aspects of the War. Establishment &quot;historians&quot; (or maybe we should label them &quot;hysterians&quot; in their messianic quest to give us the &quot;correct&quot; spin on the War and the reasons for it just knew in their hearts that we didn't need this kind of information, so they labored mightily to make sure we were not exposed to it.<br /> <br /> It has been reported that as many as 5,000 European socialists and communists from the failed 1848 socialist revolts in Europe served in the Union armies in one place or another. Some sources have placed that number closer to 10,000. After these socialists failed in their revolutionary aims in Europe in 1848-49, many came to America. A good portion of them felt that what they had failed to do in Europe in 48 and 49 might just be accomplished here in America during the War of Northern Aggression. In &quot;Forty-Eighters In The Union Armies&quot; it has been stated: &quot;The failure of their revolutionary hopes in Europe did not prevent them from taking up arms again in 1861 to defend the very principles they had fought for in 1848 and 1849; union, freedom, and democracy.&quot; Please go back and reread that last quote. Let it sink in.<br /> <br /> These European socialists viewed the War of Northern Aggression as an extension of their socialist hopes for Europe. If you consider that fact, the entire scope and reason for that War, from the Yankee perspective, takes on a whole new meaning. No longer was it a struggle to &quot;preserve the Union&quot; as given to us by the Founding Fathers, rather it was a struggle to preserve and extend the influence of European socialism in America. Author William Burton has revealed that August (von) Willich, the &quot;Communist with a heart&quot; &quot;...was not reluctant to lecture his soldiers on the virtues of socialism.&quot; If we have a record of this one instance of that being done, one wonders how many other places it occurred that have gone unreported.<br /> <br /> One amazing thing about these European socialists and communists is how many of them managed to end up with high-ranking positions in the Union armies. I will list a few here so you get the idea.<br /> <br /> Franz Sigel--Major General<br /> <br /> Carl Schurz--Major General<br /> <br /> August (von)Willich--Major General<br /> <br /> Sandor (Alexander) Asboth--Brigadier General on Fremont's staff<br /> <br /> August Becker--called &quot;Red&quot; Becker (on account of his political leanings?)--Chaplain for the 8th New York<br /> <br /> Ludwig (Louis) Blenker--Brigadier General of volunteers<br /> <br /> Isidor Busch--Captain of Fremont's staff<br /> <br /> Johann Fiala--Lt. Colonel and topographical engineer on Fremont's staff<br /> <br /> Scores of other socialists and communists could be listed if space permitted, but I think you begin to get the idea. The ethnic and ideological makeup of Mr. Lincoln's army has yet to be fully exposed.<br /> <br /> If we are to begin to try to understand the War from a Yankee perspective, we must, at all costs, take the strong socialist influence exerted on Mr. Lincoln's army into consideration.<br /> <br /> The fact that so many European socialists and communists looked upon Mr. Lincoln's War of Aggression as an extension of their own aggressive aspirations and political desires should begin to speak volumes about the true nature of the Union cause--no matter what the &quot;Hystery&quot; books tell us. Mr. Lincoln was known to be friendly to the cause of socialism. Establishment historian James McPherson has admitted that Mr. Lincoln championed the cause of the leaders of the 48 revolts in Europe. In 1848 he was all in favor of secession (for the socialists in Europe) but in 1860 he was adamantly opposed to it for Christian Southerners. That fact, alone, should give you some indication as to where Mr. Lincoln was really coming from and it should help to explain why, in 1861, the socialists flocked to own his &quot;holy cause.&quot; </div> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11860 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/JamesKing/1397/#c_11860 <div> <h3 class="post-title">LINCOLN'S SOCIALIST LEGIONS </h3> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div style="CLEAR: both"></div> Yankees and Socialists--Birds of a Feather<br /> <br /> by Al Benson Jr.<br /> <br /> <br /> During the War of Northern Aggression it has been reported that over 180,000 Germans fought in the Union armies. This number was buttressed by thousands of Austrians, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs and Irish. The majority of these were probably honest, hardworking people, yet the question must be asked--with a population of around 22 million in the North as opposed to 9 million in the South--why did the North have so many foreign troops in her armies?<br /> <br /> Francis Springer, in his book &quot;War for What?&quot; puts the number even higher. He has noted: &quot;It seems strange that the North, with such vast human resources, should find it necessary to resort to recruiting men abroad. The 1860 census shows 4,100,000 foreign born in this country, mostly located in the North, but there were 500,000 men in the Northern army of foreign birth, or 90,000 more than 10% of the foreign population, indicating that 90,000 Northern soldiers, and probably more, were recruited abroad.&quot;<br /> <br /> Author William Burton, in his book &quot;Melting Pot Soldiers&quot; deals with the foreign soldiers in the Yankee armies. He quotes a correspondent for the &quot;London Daily Telegraph&quot; as stating that the foreign soldiers in the Union armies has scant use for the abolitionists and their &quot;holy crusade&quot;. German immigrant Valentin Bechler, according to Burton, told his wife &quot;I wish all abolitionists were in Hell.&quot;<br /> <br /> One of the most carefully concealed facts over the decades about Mr. Lincoln's armies is that he had an amazing number of European socialists under uniform during the War. Only recently has information regarding this started to surface. Up until a few years ago it was one of the most studiously ignored facts and aspects of the War. Establishment &quot;historians&quot; (or maybe we should label them &quot;hysterians&quot; in their messianic quest to give us the &quot;correct&quot; spin on the War and the reasons for it just knew in their hearts that we didn't need this kind of information, so they labored mightily to make sure we were not exposed to it.<br /> <br /> It has been reported that as many as 5,000 European socialists and communists from the failed 1848 socialist revolts in Europe served in the Union armies in one place or another. Some sources have placed that number closer to 10,000. After these socialists failed in their revolutionary aims in Europe in 1848-49, many came to America. A good portion of them felt that what they had failed to do in Europe in 48 and 49 might just be accomplished here in America during the War of Northern Aggression. In &quot;Forty-Eighters In The Union Armies&quot; it has been stated: &quot;The failure of their revolutionary hopes in Europe did not prevent them from taking up arms again in 1861 to defend the very principles they had fought for in 1848 and 1849; union, freedom, and democracy.&quot; Please go back and reread that last quote. Let it sink in.<br /> <br /> These European socialists viewed the War of Northern Aggression as an extension of their socialist hopes for Europe. If you consider that fact, the entire scope and reason for that War, from the Yankee perspective, takes on a whole new meaning. No longer was it a struggle to &quot;preserve the Union&quot; as given to us by the Founding Fathers, rather it was a struggle to preserve and extend the influence of European socialism in America. Author William Burton has revealed that August (von) Willich, the &quot;Communist with a heart&quot; &quot;...was not reluctant to lecture his soldiers on the virtues of socialism.&quot; If we have a record of this one instance of that being done, one wonders how many other places it occurred that have gone unreported.<br /> <br /> One amazing thing about these European socialists and communists is how many of them managed to end up with high-ranking positions in the Union armies. I will list a few here so you get the idea.<br /> <br /> Franz Sigel--Major General<br /> <br /> Carl Schurz--Major General<br /> <br /> August (von)Willich--Major General<br /> <br /> Sandor (Alexander) Asboth--Brigadier General on Fremont's staff<br /> <br /> August Becker--called &quot;Red&quot; Becker (on account of his political leanings?)--Chaplain for the 8th New York<br /> <br /> Ludwig (Louis) Blenker--Brigadier General of volunteers<br /> <br /> Isidor Busch--Captain of Fremont's staff<br /> <br /> Johann Fiala--Lt. Colonel and topographical engineer on Fremont's staff<br /> <br /> Scores of other socialists and communists could be listed if space permitted, but I think you begin to get the idea. The ethnic and ideological makeup of Mr. Lincoln's army has yet to be fully exposed.<br /> <br /> If we are to begin to try to understand the War from a Yankee perspective, we must, at all costs, take the strong socialist influence exerted on Mr. Lincoln's army into consideration.<br /> <br /> The fact that so many European socialists and communists looked upon Mr. Lincoln's War of Aggression as an extension of their own aggressive aspirations and political desires should begin to speak volumes about the true nature of the Union cause--no matter what the &quot;Hystery&quot; books tell us. Mr. Lincoln was known to be friendly to the cause of socialism. Establishment historian James McPherson has admitted that Mr. Lincoln championed the cause of the leaders of the 48 revolts in Europe. In 1848 he was all in favor of secession (for the socialists in Europe) but in 1860 he was adamantly opposed to it for Christian Southerners. That fact, alone, should give you some indication as to where Mr. Lincoln was really coming from and it should help to explain why, in 1861, the socialists flocked to own his &quot;holy cause.&quot; </div> <strong><font size="6"> <p align="center">Facts about the Confederate States of America</p> </font><strong> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>1. The War for Southern Independence was fought primarily over slavery?</p> </strong><dir><dir> <p>Historical facts and the preponderance of evidence indicates that this</p> </dir></dir> <p>statement is false. The War was fought primarily over exorbitant tariffs of</p> <p>40 to 42% of the cost of goods shipped out of the South. The South was supporting </p> <p>70% of the cost of the U.S. Government yet little if any of that money was being </p> <p>spent on Southern infrastructure like roads. </p> <dir><dir> <p>Only some 6% of Southerners owned slaves. It is therefore quite evident</p> </dir></dir> <p>that the remaining 94% of Southerners did not fight and die so that 6% could</p> <p>retain their property.</p> <dir><dir> <p>There was a strong adherence to the U.S. Constitution by those in the Southern States, and primarily the 10th Amendment which guaranteed &quot;States Rights.&quot; Up until December, 1865 slavery was protected by the U.S. Constitution, why would the South secede over the issue of slavery?</p> </dir></dir><strong> <p>2. The South rebelled against the government of the United States by seceding from the Union and therefore deserved being invaded by the North?</p> </strong> <p>&nbsp;</p> <dir><dir> <p>A textbook written by a Mr.William Rawle, titled &quot;Views on the Constitution&quot; published in 1825 supported the concept of secession and was taught to the cadets at West Point from 1825 to 1826. Those generals who left the Union to fight for the South were some of the most highly regarded graduates of West Point and they most assuredly understood the concept of secession as it had been taught. This book is still in the library at West Point.</p> <p>Several Northern States threatened secession prior to the South taking that action. And they knew that they were within their rights to advocate secession. The state of Massachusetts threatened to secede four times. </p> <p>The compact entered into by all States who joined the Union were based on</p> </dir></dir> <p>the proposition that when and if the Union became overbearing and hurtful to</p> <p>any state then that state had the right to remove itself from that compact. This is the same doctrine spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.</p> <dir><dir> <p>In 1803, New England leaders were outraged over the admittance of Louisiana into the Union. Senator Plumer of New Hampshire stated: The Eastern States must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government of their own; and the sooner they do this, the better.&quot;</p> <p>In 1814 several New England states met at Hartford, Connecticut for the purpose of discussing secession from the Federal Union. These states included Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and parts of Vermont and New Hampshire.</p> <p>Again in 1845, John Quincy Adams and fellow New Englanders opposed the admission of Texas to the Union and openly urged withdrawal from the Union. This just 15 years before the South seceded.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </dir></dir><strong> <p>3. The Confederate Battle Flag represents slavery and oppression and is justifiably condemned?</p> </strong><dir><dir> <p>The Confederate Battle Flag only flew over the battlefield. Not a single slave ship delivering slaves to the New World sailed under the Confederate Battle Flag nor any other flag of the Confederacy. Ships involved in the slave trade flew the U.S. Flag, the Dutch Flag, the Spanish Flag and the British Flag. How then can the Confederate Battle Flag be a reminder of slavery?</p> <p>The Confederate Battle Flag was the soldiers flag and its various manifestations were exclusively used to lead men into battle.</p> <p>Today the Confederate Battle Flag is used throughout the world as a symbol of fighting against oppression. When the Berlin Wall came down an East German was seen standing on the wall waving a Confederate Battle Flag. When the people in the Ukraine were fighting to separate from Russia they used the Confederate Battle Flag and even in Africa when people were fighting to overthrow a dictatorship, they used the Confederate Battle Flag as their banner. The Confederate Battle Flag flies openly in Great Britain. In fact the Confederate Battle Flag will be flown at a college in England from April 15 to April 30 to celebrate Confederate History and Heritage Month.</p> </dir></dir><strong> <p>4. Blacks did not support the Confederacy during the War for Southern Independence?</p> </strong><dir><dir> <p>Dr. Lewis Seiner, chief inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission, who was an eyewitness to the occupation of Frederick, Maryland by Gen. Thomas J. &quot;Stonewall&quot; Jackson stated that there were over 3,000 black Confederate soldiers included in Jackson&rsquo;s army. Although not officially sanctioned by the Government in Richmond until 1865, there are many accounts of blacks who served in the Confederate army with valor and honor.</p> <p>Frederick Douglas reported, &quot;There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels.&quot;</p> <p>Free black musicians, cooks, soldiers and teamsters earned the same pay as white Confederates privates. This was not the case in the Union army where blacks did not receive equal pay. At the Confederate Buffalo Forge in Rockbridge County, Virginia, skilled black workers &quot;earned an average three times the wages of white Confederate soldiers and more than most Confederate army officers ($350 - $600 a year).</p> <p>A black Confederate soldier named James Washington, Co. D, 34th Texas Cavalry (Terrell&rsquo;s Texas Cavalry), was promoted to the rank of 3rd Sergeant.</p> <p>For general historical information on Black Confederates contact Dr. Edward Smith, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20016. Dr. Smith is a black professor and Dean of American Studies and is dedicated to clarifying the historical role of African-Americans.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </dir></dir><strong> <p>5. Only the white Southerner owned slaves?</p> </strong><dir><dir> <p>The 1830 census record of the United States shows that more than ten thousand slaves were owned by a man of color, one man of color held seventy slaves who worked his five-hundred acre plantation.</p> <p>The New England slave trade began in 1640 and was based primarily on the commodities of molasses, rum and slaves. Sugar cane (tended by slaves) in the Caribbean was made into molasses and shipped to Northern ports where it was made into rum, which was then transported to Africa and traded for more slaves. </p> <p>The availability of slaves depended on how many had been captured in Africa by other black tribes. Normally male captives were killed and the women and children kept as slaves by the Africans. But after it was discovered that slaves could be traded for rum and other commodities, the African tribes readily swapped their captives for barrels of rum and trinkets.</p> <p>The myth that the white man pursued Africans in the jungles to enslave them is the stuff of movies and had no truth in fact.</p> </dir></dir><strong> <p>6. The Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves in the United States?</p> </strong><dir><dir> <p>The Emancipation Proclamation that supposedly freed the slaves was only directed to those states that had seceded from the Union. It did not free a single slave held in the North or the five border states that were included in the Union. It is noteworthy that General Grant did not free his slaves until the 13th Amendment was passed after the war was over.</p> </dir></dir><dir><dir> <p>Lincoln&rsquo;s statement from the Emancipation Proclamation reads thusly &quot;all<u> persons held as slaves within any State, or any designated part of a State, the<strong> </strong>people whereof shall then be in rebellion<strong> </strong>against the United<strong> States</strong>, shall be then free, thenceforward, and for ever, free.&quot;</u> It did not free General Grants slaves, nor did it free any slave anywhere.</p> <strong> <p>&nbsp;</p> </strong><dir><dir> <p>Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America states:</p> </dir></dir> <p>1. The importation of negros of the African race, from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden, and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>2. Congress shall have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any state not a member of , or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy. The Constitution of the .</p> <p>Confederacy ensured there would be no more importation of slaves from anywhere.</p> <strong> <p>8. Blacks who escape the South were welcomed in the North and given sanctuary?</p> </strong><dir><dir> <p>New Jersey passed one of the first exclusionary laws that forbid free blacks from coming into that State.</p> <p>In 1853, Indiana&rsquo;s constitution stated that &quot;...no negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the state...&quot;</p> <p>In 1857, Oregon&rsquo;s constitution provided that &quot;...No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of adoption [of the constitution of the state of Oregon]...shall come, reside, or be within this state...&quot;</p> <p>In 1862, while the war was in full force, Illinois passed, by an overwhelming popular vote an amendment to the state&rsquo;s constitution declaring that&quot;...No negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state.</p> <p>Massachusetts passed a law that allowed the flogging of blacks who came into the state and remained for longer than two months.</p> <p>Connecticut passed a law declaring that non-resident blacks could not attend public schools because&hellip;&quot; it would tend to the great increase of the colored people of the state.&quot;</p> <p>Rhode Island passed a law providing for the gradual emancipation of slaves, however the law was very carefully worded to insure there wo