Trees or no trees, approximately 20,000 cars a day will see that stunningly beautiful flag. That's an exponentially larger audience than the blogs of Mackey, Hall, Levin, and Brooks combined. And each of these clowns sneer that a few tree branches are present and few pople will be able to see it. Stupid hypocrites.
Simpson's "Elsewhere in Richmond" prominently features the US flag, as thought Floggers know best how to display honor and heritage. The US flag also represents freedom.By definition, seceding is a form of "freedom to leave." What better way to display honor and freedom than the freedom to travel or leave, as in seceding. Floggers aren't known for espousing the virtues of freedom, but the US flag represents freedom. So, to the Floggers, the US flag supposedly represents freedom - as long as one is NOT seceding.
I wonder...are those trees in front of the flag trees on the state side of the fense? Will the state be willing to spend money and man power to cut them down?Janice, what did the south secede since seceding is all about freedom you might find this answer Ironic.
Another masterpiece with Brooks Simpson features Keith Olbermann bloviating about Texas seceding from the Union, and all that Texas would lose in the process. Nothing is said about North and South California and North and South Colorado who simply want to divide, but stay in the Union.Olbermann says if Texas secedes, Fort Hood would have to leave. Would Obama invade Texas with 75,000 troops if Texas secedes? Would we have another Fort Sumter/Hood incident? Would General Sherman invade Texas and murder another 60,000 women and children to teach the secess a lesson. And what will we do with all the slaves in Texas? How about an underground railroad ALL THE WAY INTO CANADA? Can't have them slaves stopping in Michigan or Illinois or migrating to New York. Note: Uncle Tom's Cabin is in Ontario, Canada. LOL Why did Uncle Tom keep going right on into Canada instead of stopping in New York or Ohio or Minnesota?????Too bad Keith Olbermann was not President in 1861 espousing the same idea about "Fort Sumter would have to leave?"I believe Texas has paid enough federal income tax since 1845 to cover the cost of Fort Hood, and a few other forts as well. Who owns the federal tax paid to Washington anyway?Simpson picked the wrong person to bloviate about Texas seceding. Olbermann can't even keep his job at MSNBC!
I think I see the point Corey is trying to make. Because the States which seceded maintained the institution of slavery, they had no right to expect their claims to political freedom should be respected. After all, if they denied freedom to others, why should they be entitled to it? And Corey is likewise asserting that the Founders also had absolutely no right to political freedom because they were slave-owners and slave-traders themselves. And because the petty complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence were silly and hollow compared to the severe human rights abuses the Founders were routinely inflicting on their black slaves, their claim to political freedom was an ugly hypocritical farce.That is the point you were trying to make, right Corey?
The south seceded from the Union in 1861. The north, in order to preserve the Union, said the south's leaving the Union was illegal, unconstitutional, and the south never left the union in the first place.After the war, the north, in order to preserve the Union, said the south could come back into the Union that they never left.All the south had to do was ratify the 14th amendment, and buy their way back into the Union that the north said the south never left in the first place.If the south never left the Union, according to the north in order to preserve the Union, why did the south have to buy their way back into the Union that they never left in the first place?Maybe Keith Olbermann or Corey Meyer or the man Simpson himself can figure that one out?? Andy Hall can draw us a picture, or that miraculous camera he has could reach back in time, since it is so go at taking pictures from 1,000 miles away??
Austin, No that is not the point I am trying to make. In the process you are making a very strong point in your failure to understand the basics of Civil War History.Slavery was the cause in which the south placed at the forefront of its reasons for secession. Read the Secession Commissioners...
NOW I see your point Corey. It was perfectly acceptable for a State, like Missouri or Kentucky for example, to protect and defend slavery by remaining in the United States-where the President himself had repeatedly vowed to protect it-but it was absolutely unacceptable for a State, like South Carolina or Alabama for example, to protect and defend slavery by seceding. Now then, because slavery would be protected either by remaining or seceding, slavery is obviously completely and utterly irrelevant. That means the only issue to be discussed is the matter of secession. Is that your point?
No Austin, slavery is indefensable...the south was not willing to end slavery and chose war instead of ending or letting the institution die eventually.What you fail to understand it the Union's position on slavery and why the south felt the need to secede despite that position.Lincoln vowed to "protect" it where it existed because he knew that it would take an amendment to the Constitution to outlaw it. The south feared that slavery would eventually be placed on a course of ultimate extinction and did not agree with that...so they seceded to defend slavery ...knowing that if the did not slavery would be on its way out under a Republican president and government.So no...secession is not the only thing left to discuss...why the south needed to secede over the issue of slavery and resort to war to defend it is a viable discussion issue.
Comments are welcome, but monitored.