Judge blocks parts of South Carolina immigration law

South Carolina cannot enforce several key areas of its new law aimed at curbing illegal immigration, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.
The law is set to take effect on January 1.
U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel granted a preliminary injunction, ruling that the federal government has exclusive constitutional authority to regulate immigration and the state's law would disrupt federal enforcement operations.
The U.S. Department of Justice and a coalition of civil rights groups had sued to block parts of the law from going into effect.

Justice Dept silent as Holder charges critics with racism

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 29: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (2nd L)) points his finger as he talks to a member of the press at the end of an event to launch a campaign to combat the purchase and sale of counterfeit and pirated products November 29, 2011 at the South Court Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building of the White House in Washington, DC. According to a news release from the Department of Justice, the campaign will educate the public on various forms of intellectual property theft, from counterfeit consumer goods and pharmaceuticals to illegal downloads and other pirated materials, with highlight on the potential health, safety and economic consequences for American citizens. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Attorney General Eric Holder accused his growing chorus of critics of racist motivations in a Sunday interview published in the New York Times. When reached by The Daily Caller Monday morning, the Department of Justice provided no evidence to support the attorney general’s claims.
Holder said some unspecified faction — what he refers to as the “more extreme segment” — is driven to criticize both him and President Barack Obama due to the color of their skin. Holder did not appear to elaborate on who he considered to make up the “more extreme segment.”
“This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” Holder said, according to the Times. “Both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”
The White House hasn’t returned requests for comment on whether President Barack Obama agrees with his top law enforcement officer’s allegations of racial motivations.
Holder’s accusations come as resignation calls mount from a growing list of 60 congressmen, two senators, every major Republican presidential candidate and two sitting governors, spurred on by the congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious.
Additionally, seventy-five congressmen have signed onto a House resolution for a vote of “no confidence” in Holder as attorney general. Between the two lists, there are 86 total in the House who no longer trust Holder to head the Department of Justice.
It’s not the first time the race card has come into play in efforts to protect Holder from criticism.

Most recently, during a December 8 House Judiciary Committee hearing into Fast and Furious where Holder was testifying, Georgia Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson argued that Fast and Furious wasn’t that big of a scandal because “white supremacists,” among others he described, were able to purchase weapons at “gun shows.” Johnson, who was concerned Guam may “tip over and capsize” if more military personnel are sent there, later told TheDC that he thinks the tea party movement and the National Rifle Association “manufactured” Fast and Furious as a scandal to try to attack the president.
The White House hasn’t denounced Johnson’s rhetoric, nor has Holder. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), however, wouldn’t side with him — even unofficially — last week. (RELATED: Rifts in Congressional Black Caucus over Fast and Furious, Holder)
Fast and Furious was a program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, overseen by Holder’s DOJ. It sent thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels via straw purchasers — people who legally purchased guns in the United States with the known intention of illegally trafficking them somewhere else.
At least 300 people in Mexico were killed with Fast and Furious weapons, as was Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. The identities of the Mexican victims are unknown.
Holder has said he was unaware of the operation, despite having been sent several personal memos from his top deputies and assistants. The memos contained intimate details of how Operation Fast and Furious worked. “This investigation [Fast and Furious, which is named earlier in the memo] — initiated in September 2009 in conjunction with the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Phoenix Police Department — involves a Phoenix-based firearms trafficking ring headed by Manuel Celis-Acosta,” one such memo that Holder was provided reads. “Celis-Acosta and straw purchasers are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug-trafficking cartels. They also have direct ties to the Sinaloa Cartel, which is suspected of providing $1 million for the purchase of firearms in the greater Phoenix area.”
In his Times interview, Holder again attacked the media who are covering the scandal. “Mr. Holder contended that many of his other critics — not only elected Republicans but also a broader universe of conservative commentators and bloggers — were instead playing ‘Washington gotcha’ games, portraying them as frequently ‘conflating things, conveniently leaving some stuff out, construing things to make it seem not quite what it was’ to paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light,” Times reporter Charlie Savage wrote in the front page Sunday Times story.
Holder also attacked the media for covering the Fast and Furious scandal. Holder swiped at TheDC in late November, alleging that The Daily Caller is “behind” the calls for his resignation because it has been reporting on the subject.
“You guys need to — you need to stop this,” Holder told TheDC at a White House event. “It’s not an organic thing that’s just happening. You guys are behind it.”

Missouri State University chief sorry band played ‘Dixie’

NAACP complains, school retreats

December 18, 2011

Missouri State University interim president Clif Smart has apologised after the local National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter complained about the school’s band performing “Dixie” in Springfield, MO. The reason given for the offence is that the song was played at a site where three Black men were lynched more than century ago. Based on this the NAACP complained and Mr Smart immediately bent to their wishes. He says that the school will no longer play the Southern anthem publicly.
The NAACP complaint raises questions. Was the lynching of three men the only thing that ever happened in Springfield, MO? Of course not. Does the song glorify violence against Blacks or anyone else? Certainly not. It celebrates the South, where most Blacks in the United States live. And while the song was adopted by Confederates in the 1860s, it was written before Southern secession and the US war against the South and has remained popular with Southerners to this day. Was the Missouri State University band celebrating the lynching of three men a century ago? Absolutely not. And if “Dixie” conjures up memories of or associations with the lynching of three men in 1906, does “The Star Spangled Banner” conjure up associations with the nuking of a quarter million defenseless civilians in 1945, the US genocide of the Plains Indian nations in the late 1800s or most recently the deaths of one million Iraqis? Two can play this game and if songs are going to be banned because of such associations then the rule should be applied evenly across the board. But of course that will not happen.
The song “Dixie” is the most recognisable Southern anthem. Banning it is an act of cultural intolerance against the Southern people. Considered in light of the bans elsewhere and removals of Southern symbols and statues throughout the South, it smacks of an effort to eradicate Southern identity and culture. In their hay-day, the Marxists enacted similar bans on the symbols, songs and flags of the cultural groups they ruled over in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in an effort to destroy the national identities of their captive populations. Today’s cultural Marxist movement of political-correctness which has swept across the Southern States certainly bears great resemblance to something “Uncle Joe” and his murderous band of communist criminals would have tried back in the USSR. The goal is to eliminate us as a distinct people and culture.

The welfare state, the South & independence

Eliminating the destructive welfare state & restoring self-determination 

 

Dr Ralph Raico, an author, historian, free market economist and professor at State University of New York College at Buffalo, spoke at a conference back in 2003 in which he talked about the rise and fall of what we now call Classical Liberalism (though it was once just called liberalism – and still is in much of the world – before Left-wing statists appropriated the popular label in the US for their own cause). Dr Raico, who would almost certainly have been termed a “Copperhead” for his support of the South and the right of secession had he lived in the 1860s, applies his analysis of the decline of freedom and the rise of the welfare/warfare state in the Western World (especially since WWI though the process was underway well before then) to the South. In fact, he argues that Southern secession in 1860-61 was the last serious attempt to check an unlimited US Federal Government, which today recognises no limits on its powers at home and around the globe. He also talks about Southerners’ attempts to limit the Confederate Government in Richmond much as they had tried (and failed) to do to the Federal Government in Washington. Dr Raico discusses the US Federal Government’s conquest of the South and its disregard for Southern life and even for the slaves for whom they claimed to care so much. He goes on to talk about a development of the Western welfare state which its early advocates probably could not have envisioned – this being political correctness, multiculturalism and the destruction of Western people and their replacement with Third World immigrants. He talks about how the welfare state has eliminated references to Dixie and attacked Southern identity as part of this process. Perhaps most interestingly for Southern nationalists, Dr Raico argues that Classical Liberalism can not be restored in the United States and that the modern state can not be limited. Instead, he argues that free and homogeneous (he tackles the very politically-incorrect subject of “diversity” as the welfare state uses the term) communities across the South (and the Occidental world in general) need to be formed where people of similar backgrounds and cultures can govern themselves and preserve their culture, identity and liberty free from a central government or modern state. This is the only way we will survive and achieve freedom, Dr Raico argues.

Teen Suspended From N.J. School For Wearing Confederate Flag Shirt

Says It's Part Of Her History; Mom Vows To Sue On First Amendment Violation

 

 EAST WINDSOR, N.J. (CBSNewYork) — A 14-year-old New Jersey girl has been suspended for wearing a sweatshirt with a Confederate flag on it.
Many see it as a symbol of hate and racism, but this teenager claims its part of her heritage, reports CBS 2’s Christine Sloan.
Torri Albrecht said Monday when she showed up to her middle school wearing a sweatshirt with the confederate flag. She said her vice principal gave her a choice:
“He said I had to take off the sweatshirt or flip it inside out or face the consequences,” Albrecht said.
But the eighth grader, who was born in Virginia and lived there just a year, said she refused to take it off.
“It shows I am from the South. I am proud of where I came from and it shows my heritage,” Albrecht said.
The teenager’s mother, who took a picture at the Kreps Middle School, said her daughter was suspended for not changing into something else — a violation, she said, of her First Amendment rights.
“The Indian kids get to wear turbans. The Jewish children can wear yarmulkes. That’s their birth right, their heritage. It’s my daughter’s heritage,” said Jane West, Albrecht’s mother.

An assistant superintendent said Albrecht was not suspended for the sweatshirt but for a confidentiality policy they can’t discuss.
“When I got the suspension slip it said she was disrespectful when asked to remove her sweatshirt,” West said.
Albrecht’s bed is covered with her dad’s Confederate flag. He died two years ago. And it’s on the computer screen she used to buy her sweatshirt online.
However, Albrecht did admit she doesn’t know the history behind this flag, viewed by many as a racially-charged symbol.
“I don’t pay attention to that I don’t know,” Albrecht said.
However, the teenager, who said she’s receiving death threats, insisted, “Everyone who wears it isn’t racist.”
Some people in her town disagree.
“It’s a negative connotation. All she’s doing is hurting other peoples’ feelings,” resident Ken Flent told Sloan.
Albrecht said she wants to be transferred to a new school district and want to wear her sweatshirt there. Albrecht’s mother said she plans on suing her current school district. Editor's Note: The girl is suspended for being disrespectful, not for wearing the t-shirt. So what does that tell you?

Memorial Service Honors Confederate Prisoners

Scotland, MD - 11/7/2011
Printer friendly
By Dick Myers

Guest speaker Adbur Haymes

In the midst of the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, one of war’s many dark spots was remembered Saturday in St. Mary’s County. More than 4,000 Confederate soldiers died at Pt. Lookout prisoner of war camp between 1863 and 1865 of the 50,000 soldiers held there. A memorial service in their memory was held at the National Confederate Cemetery in Scotland just north of the camp which is now part of Pt. Lookout State Park.

The event was hosted by Captain Vincent Camalier, Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) Camp #1359 and the newly formed Southern Maryland Chapter #48, Order of the Confederate Rose, Private Jane Perkins.

Camp Commander Larry Messick welcomed everyone attending the event on the blustery day. Many of the attendees were dressed in re-enactor costumes. During the presentation of colors re-enactors representing a number of units surrounded the base of the Confederate monument.

Newly appointed Baltimore National Cemetery Superintendent Dr. Martha Rankin was on her first visit to Pt. Lookout. She said the area evoked different responses from different people, but she noted, “I can’t imagine anyone visiting here and not being moved. We share the inability to wrap our minds around the number of soldiers killed and wounded in the Civil War.” She added that sites such as Pt. Lookout are, “places for future generations to learn from.”

Guest speaker was Adbur Haymes, director of operations at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond and a retired U.S. Army Sgt. Major. Haymes, an African-American and an unabashed southerner, said “I say y’all and drink sweat tea.” He added he brought greeting from Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee.

Haymes said of those who wound up at Pt. Lookout, “They were proud soldiers who did their duty following the orders of their president, Jefferson Davis and following the orders of their general, Robert E. Lee.”

Haymes spoke lovingly of Gen. Lee and told how he agonized about joining the Confederacy. He told of leaving Arlington House after making that decision, never to return. He told of how soldiers were buried on the front lawn of Arlington House. Lee’s son filed suit in the 1890’s to regain control of their ancestral home and won that suit in the U.S. Supreme Court. The family was given the option to disinter the bodies, but realized that Gen. Lee would have not wanted that. Instead they sold the property to the U.S. for what is now Arlington National Cemetery.

Haymes called both Davis and Lee great men and said he is on a mission to rehabilitate the legacy of the president of the Confederacy.

Commander of the Southern Maryland Chapter #48, Order of the Confederate Rose Monie Harper told the story of Private Jane Perkins, after whom the chapter is named. She and her brother immigrated to America after the Irish Rebellion, ended up in Massachusetts, where they were not welcome and eventually settled in Virginia where she became a school teacher.

Jane’s brother enlisted in the Army of Northern Virginia and she joined him, first incognito as a man. She was captured during a battle in Hanover, VA and sent to Pt. Lookout, where she was the only woman. She was strip-searched upon arrival and she gave birth to a son while there (father unknown).

Buck-Thompson described a feisty woman who told her captors, “I can straddle a horse, I can jump a fence and I can kill a Yankee.” After being sent to another prison her son was kept at Pt. Lookout and both of their ultimate fates remain a mystery today.

During the ceremony the Pledge of Allegiance was recited and the National Anthem performed, the Salute to the Confederate Flag was also recited and Dixie performed. Maryland My Maryland, with its words “Despot’s Heel is on Our Shore” was also performed by musician Wally Ivanov. Wreaths were laid at the monument from several organizations.

Many of the re-enactors camped at the park on Friday evening.

Point Lookout Memorial Service

Point Lookout Memorial Service

November 5, 2011

Scotland, Maryland

11 AM

Sponsored by the Captain Vincent Camalier Camp #1359,

Sons of Confederate Veterans

Guest speaker will be Sgt. Major Abdur Hamyes, (US Army Ret.) of  The Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, VA.

Present will be the award winning SCV Maryland Division Color Guard.

Also, Friday evening Nov. 4^th at 6:30 PM. at Confederate Memorial Park, The Private Jane Perkins Camp #48, Order of the Confederate Rose, will be sponsoring a Paranormal Investigation of the park and cemetery.

Trent Hall Media Group will lead the investigation. There is a fee to join the investigation teams Friday evening but it will be so much fun.

We plan on setting up camp Friday and spending the night. Confederate Memorial Park is located 1 mile north of Point Lookout State Park, site of the infamous Point Lookout Prison Camp which housed 52,000 Confederate P.O.W.'s during the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War). Come join us!

Special Request from Dr. Hill

The League of the South has a message all freedom-loving Southerners ought to hear. It is the message of Southern independence from a sinking, corrupt, and destructive regime in Washington, DC. When our people hear this message, they usually react positively to it. After all, no one in his right mind wants to go down on an obviously sinking ship.

But how many of them never hear our message because we stay "under the radar?" As much as we hate to admit it, our organization is still unknown to most Southerners. Why? One reason is the clutter of mass information - we get buried beneath the crush of topics that dominate both the conventional news cycle and the internet. Another is the nature of our message. It is unpopular with the "powers-that-be," including the news media; therefore, it is ridiculed, marginalized, or simply ignored. But perhaps the main reason we remain under the radar is the lack of funds to advertise our message.

The League of the South Board of Directors has approved a major publicity campaign. It will take money to do a test run of this project. Though we are not yet at liberty to divulge all the details of this project (mainly because we think our enemies would try to prevent it), we are to the point where we are ready to raise the money to fund it.

As President of the League, I am asking for at least 50 members or supporters to pledge $30 quarterly, $60 semi-annually, or $120 annually to this test project. Our ultimate goal is to raise $6000 ($1500 per quarter) over the next 12 months to put this publicity campaign to a real live test run.

You can make a quarterly or semi-annual pledge (for which we will send you a "coupon book" as a reminder of your pledge) or you can simply make a one-time annual donation for the amount you wish to pledge. Anything we raise over and above the necessary amount will be placed in a special fund to help with the continuation of this project.

Though initially we are running a test (which we will be able to closely monitor), we believe the project has merit and thus will prove successful in getting us out from below the radar and into the eye of the Southern public. I am asking you to make a pledge today. Once we have the necessary funds committed and all the plans in place, we will announce the launching of this important project, first to League members and supporters and then to the general public.

If we fund and plan it well, the project will draw a great deal of attention to our message.

Please make your contribution to the League office today by sending your donation by mail to: LS, PO Box 760, Killen, Alabama 35645 or by visiting our website at http://dixienet.org/members/Outreach_Project.php. 

Michael Hill

President, The League of the South

Feds ask court to block Alabama’s immigration law

Central regime continues to stand in the way 

The US Federal Government is attempting to stop Alabama from acting to slow down the flow of illegal immigration and the displacement of native Alabamians. Fox News reported on the story:

The Obama administration asked an appeals court on Friday to block the enforcement of Alabama’s strict immigration law — widely considered to be the toughest in the nation — arguing it invites discrimination against foreign-born citizens and legal immigrants and is at odds with federal policy.
The Justice Department filed the challenge to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. It claimed Alabama’s new law “is highly likely to expose persons lawfully in the United States, including school children, to new difficulties in routine dealings.”

The overhaul allows authorities to question people suspected of being in the country illegally and hold them without bond. It also lets officials check the immigration status of students in public schools.
A federal judge in Alabama upheld those two key aspects of the law, which have already taken effect.
Those provisions that took effect are what help make the Alabama law stricter than similar laws passed in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia. Other federal judges have blocked all or parts of the laws in those states.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday that President Obama has been clear on his position that “efforts to address the issue of America’s broken immigration system through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.”
Alabama shrugged off the appeal.
“The fact that the Department of Justice has appealed comes as no surprise,” Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said. “I remain committed to seeing that this law is fully implemented. We will continue to defend this law against any and all challenges.”
Immigration became a hot issue in Alabama over the past decade as the state’s Hispanic population grew by 145 percent to about 185,600. While the group still represents only about 4 percent of the population, some counties in north Alabama have large Spanish-speaking communities and schools where most of the students are Hispanic.
The Justice Department’s appeal said parts of the law conflict with federal rules, and that “attempts to drive aliens `off the grid’ will only impede the removal process established by federal law.” It also said the legislation could impact diplomatic relations with foreign countries.
“Alabama is not in a position to answer to other nations for the consequences of its policy,” it said. “That is the responsibility of the federal government, which speaks for all the states and must ensure that the consequences of one state’s foray in to the realm of immigration law are not visited upon the nation as a whole.”
It also said requiring officers to report people without adequate credentials to federal immigration officials “unnecessarily diverts resources from federal enforcement priorities and precludes state and local officials from working in true cooperation with federal officials.”

TSA scanners coming to more airports across the South

Hundreds of scanners already at airports... more on the way

Austin, Baton Rouge, Chattanooga, Knoxville and Tallahassee are among the 29 airports in the United States where the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is installing its controversial scanners which take images through travellers’ clothing. The TSA describes their invasive devices in glowing terms:

The machines will be deployed with new automated target recognition software designed to enhance privacy by eliminating passenger-specific images while improving throughput capabilities and streamlining the checkpoint screening process.”We remain committed to implementing technologies that strengthen passenger privacy while ensuring the highest level of security,” said TSA Administrator John S. Pistole. “In addition to improving the passenger experience at the checkpoint, advanced imaging technology continues to give us the greatest opportunity to detect and deter evolving threats to aviation.”
…In September 2011, TSA purchased 300 millimeter wave units, which are being deployed in the coming months. Currently, there are nearly 500 AIT units at 78 airports nationwide. President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget included the purchase of 500 units, and the President’s fiscal 2012 budget requests funding for an additional 275 units.

Obama to create White House Rural Council

Obama to reach out to bitter people who cling to guns and religion

WASHINGTON (AP) --President Barack Obama plans to create a special advisory council to recommend ways to boost the economic outlook and quality of life for the estimated 60 million people who live in rural areas of the U.S., a White House official said.
Obama was expected to sign an executive order Thursday establishing the White House Rural Council and naming Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, of Iowa, to be its chairman.

And what better way to improve lives than another federal program, huh?
The official asked not to be identified in order to speak freely before a formal White House announcement about the council. The panel will be responsible for providing recommendations to the president on investment in rural areas, as well as coordinating with a variety of rural interests, including agricultural groups, small businesses, and state, local and tribal governments.

It will focus on 10 areas that affect nearly one-fifth of the U.S. population of 308 million. But the panel's initial focus will be on job creation and economic development.
Rural residents are eager for better educational opportunities, transportation alternatives, better access to health care and reliable access to the Internet, among other issues.

The remaining subject areas will be: agriculture, access to credit, innovation, health care, education, Internet access, infrastructure, conservation and developing regional economies.

See, he does care about us.

Southern Heritage Event at Cecil’s Old Mill in Maryland

June 9, 2011

Confederate encampment reenacted

An entertaining day of music, Southern history and fun is coming up in Maryland:

Saturday, June 18th at the Cecil’s Historic District in Great Mills, MD, the life of the Southern soldier in 1861 will be recreated during the SCV Camp #1359, Captain Vincent Camalier Encampment. Members of SCV Camp #1359 will faithfully recreate an encampment of 10 canvas tents, authentically furnished in 19th century military style. Using their historically accurate uniforms, weapons, and equipment, camp members will educate visitors on the history of the war as experienced by the Southern soldier.

The day will begin with the Striking of the Colors by the SCV Honor Guard. Throughout the day there will be black powder firing demonstrations, campfire cooking exhibits, and tours of the soldiers sleeping quarters. There will also be an opportunity for kids to play some of the popular children’s games from that time. Folksinger Bob Simmons will perform many of his original songs about the history of St. Mary’s. There will be a live bluegrass music from 1-3pm on the front porch of Cecil’s Country Store, and storyteller/historian, J.B. Couch will be on hand to delight visitors with his talents. Tasty food and cool drinks will be available for sale by the Optimist Club, with ice cream across the street at the Old Mill.

While at the encampment, visitors can also tour Cecil’s Old Mill. Located in one of Maryland’s first Industrial Districts, Cecil’s Mill was originally built as a cotton/ textile factory in the 1800′s. It was later transformed into a grist mill and saw mill. After restoration in the late 70′s, Cecil’s Old Mill became a National Landmark in Historic St. Mary’s County. Today, the mill exhibits artifacts including its working water wheel,  and is home to some of the finest local arts and handmade crafts for sale. The historic district also includes Cecil’s Country Store and Post Office.

Cecil’s Old Mill is located at 20854 Indian Bridge Road, Great Mills, MD. The encampment will be open to the public between the hours of 10am and 5pm on Saturday, June 18th, 2011. For more information on Cecil’s Old Mill, call 301-994-1510 or visit their Facebook page.

Confederate Memorial Day at Arlington Cemetery

June 6, 2011

By Michael

 

Ceremonies honour fallen Southern heroes

The Washington Post is running an AP article about Confederate Memorial Day at Arlington Cemetery, the former property of General Robert E. Lee that was stolen by the US government and used as a burial ground for Northern soldiers who were killed attempting to conquer the Southern States. Later, the Federals began burying soldiers from all the many foreign wars they have involved themselves in as well.

The United Daughters of the Confederacy are marking Confederate Memorial Day at Arlington National Cemetery.

The Richmond-based group has events scheduled Sunday morning and afternoon at the Confederate Monument on the cemetery grounds.

Confederate Memorial Day is recognized on various dates across the south.

The monument at Arlington dates to 1914 and it remains a controversial landmark.

American presidents have traditionally marked the day by sending a wreath to the site. In 2009, several dozen university professors and scholars asked President Barack Obama to end the tradition, which they considered offensive.

Obama refused but began another tradition of also sending a presidential wreath to a Washington monument honoring African-Americans who fought in the Civil War

Come Home to Old Maryland Retreat

Be Our Guest at the

Come Home to Old Maryland Retreat

Saturday 11 June 2011

Noon to 4:00 PM [Or So]

Bushwood, Maryland

Our Program

Mini-Hedge Schools

[Two 45- Minute Presentations]

The Maryland Constitution

Reverend David Whitney

Institute on the Constitution Senior Instructor

The Origins of

Old Maryland and Virginia Speech

Pete Wigginton

Unreconstructed Philologist

Dinner at 12:30

Chaptico Market Fried Chicken, Greens, Potato Salad, Country Ham Biscuits, Dessert

We will supply tea and coffee. Folks can bring other beverages if they wish.

To register, email Joyce Bennett at jbennett@chesapeake.net or call 240-298-5281.

Registration required by 4 June. Directions will be sent to all who register.

Those coming from a distance are invited to stay overnight. There are limited lodging accommodations in the house. Camping on the lawn is an option too. Our meeting place is a gently restored historic home at the confluence of the Potomac and Wicomico Rivers in St. Mary's County. The house is not air conditioned. We will hold the hedge school sessions on the grounds and will be dining there as well , weather permitting. In case of rain, we will convene indoors.

The rebirth of the Free State

By MDMyMaryland

 

A renewed interest in small government at the northernmost end of Dixie

Contrary to the beliefs of some commentators on certain low-ratings national “news” agencies, the “Free State” didn’t earn its second nickname by being pro-Lincoln. Quite the contrary, Lincoln recieved less than 3,000 votes in the entire State, which voted for Breckinridge, and the nickname originated from a newspaper editor who called it so in response to Marylanders being called traitors for refusing to enforce prohibition at the State level. Yep that’s right folks, up until 35 years ago, Maryland was a reliable State’s rights zone. Today, so many Yankees have migrated to the central portion of Maryland that many don’t even identify with the rest of the State as “Southerners,” let alone hold a positive view of the League of the South or secession movements sponsored by other regions of the State. But despite multiple organisational setbacks, the Maryland Division League of the South has seen a recent boom in State-wide interest. Just two months into the year, the division has made appearances on radio, and been defended by various local newspapers. This year’s first meeting was held at the end of January in La Plata, MD. While there was much lament over the state of affairs in Montgomery county, a virtual cancerous extension of Washington, D.C., the major activist planning revolved around bumper stickers and supporting businesses that serve sweet tea and display proper manners. Both important to the preservation of our culture, but hardly means by themselves for the resurrection of a sovereignty movement.

When Thomas DiLorenzo, economics professor at Loyola University in Baltimore, was viciously attacked by a Missouri congressman for being tied to a “hate group,” a front page story in the Baltimore Sun raised many an eyebrow across the Old Line State. Even more shocking than the front page mention of the organisation, was the unbiased reporting normally lacking from the left-leaning news source. Members of the League of the South reported outsiders holding conversations about the article with positive reviews for the group and Ron Paul’s defense of it. For the first time in the history of the Maryland League, the League was publically on the offensive, and the detractors looked like the poverty pimps they are. Even Loyola University, which said it would certainly investigate any ties to “confirmed hate groups” by member professors, issued statements saying that the web site for the League of the South did not to their knowledge have anything hateful about race; in fact, the “free thinking” society called for an open debate and the issues the League claimed to represent were appropriate for discussion. Finally, consistency. The effect was that a large amount of Marylanders who had never before heard of the League were now introduced to it. Before they could be brainwashed into dismissing it as a hate group, such claims were already discounted. A barrier that often impedes even groups in the deep South was, at least temporarily, pushed aside. The time to advertise official positions of the Maryland League had come.
Most bills in Maryland have two facts in common. First, it’s all about the dollar in Annapolis. Second, if it’s a liberal bill, it is generally only supported in the D.C. metro area. The reason for this second observation is because while Maryland’s counties may be very conservative overall, over half of the residents live in the counties surrounding the Washington region. Case in point: Montgomery county. Just 50 years ago, the county was reliably conservative, and one of the largest businesses in the county was tobacco farming. Fast-forward 50 years later, and the amount of Yankee (mostly New England) transplants to Montgomery county alone has increased 2,600%. Yes, you read that right. For every Yankee living in the county 50 years ago, there resides 26 more today. And what could possibly draw so many Yankees to an area of Dixie that is well inland of the beaches and not exactly “endless summer” territory? Government jobs. And government workers almost always vote their paychecks. So not only did they bring their humanistic worldview, but their big-government voting paterns as well.

There are the areas such as northern Prince George’s county (also adjacent Washington, D.C.) and Baltimore City, which have a majority black population, historically democratic. But it is the gerrymandering that prevents a lot of these areas from being competitive politically. When a black man such as Charles Lollar, a conservative who proved he could hang out in the Confederate flag-waving bars of St. Mary’s county for a half hour and walk out with $5000 in donations just by showing who he really represented, can win three quarters of his district by county and lose because of an area stretching out 15 miles from Washington, thereby losing the election, it is hard to see any real change. The result of such politics is areas like Solomon’s Island, with it’s pleasant Southron people and even a welcome sign reading “Welcome Y’all,” being “represented” by “men” like Hoyer who have no respect for the South as a whole, let alone his own district.

The fact of the matter is, if the entire eastern shore of Maryland, one third of the State’s landmass, all of western Maryland, all of Southern Maryland, and even the central portions excluding those two counties by D.C. and the city of Baltimore votes reliably conservative on every issue, there is still usually a good chance they don’t get their way. The only logical solution is secession. Not only from the United States federal regime, but from the corrupt State government as well. Counties have pushed for it in the past. A decade ago, several eastern shore congressmen pushed for the secession of all 9 eastern shore counties. Just last year the commissioners of Frederick county in western MD considered a resolution to explore the ramifications of becoming their own State. But until now there has not been a unifying issue to push the eastern, southern and western portions to move on their threats together.

With the economy tanking and the stability of the entire federal empire on the brink, the state legislature in Annapolis has decided it is a good time to tackle two primary issues: changing the State’s law defining marriage, and raising the tax on fuel at a time when $5.00 regular unleaded is being threatened for 2011. While the world focuses on the liberals in Wisconsin complaining about what the government may no longer give them, Annapolis is getting jammed daily with truck drivers and protestors afoot, taking a stand against a fuel tax that could increase as much as 13% in an already overtaxed State. This act by the legislature only serves as an attention getter to those otherwise sleeping throughout the land, screaming the need for a more permanent solution. And of course, the Maryland League of the South is here with solutions, advertising in the local and city papers and weekly services. The other bill, redifining marriage to be, for all intents and purposes, between anyone other than a man and his goat, may not even make it to the governor. The House of Delegates, otherwise more liberal of the two chambers, wrestles with how to vote for a “law” that even much of their constituents in the D.C. area (many of whom are either black or Catholic) are opposed to. The Senate president has already vowed that if the law is signed, he will personally see to it that there is a referendum on the 2012 ballot. Should the law be passed, don’t expect the news media to report on the possibility of a referendum until just before the election next year. They know once it is given to the people, it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Miami. With this issue, the Maryland League of the South has even gained permission from some of the top talk radio stations in the State to run pro-traditional Southern values commercials during peak listening time. These commercials are running, and even advertise Dixienet.org and the Maryland League of the South by name.

The fight here, just below the Mason-Dixon line, is not so much one to prove our postion, as it is to unify the people under one banner against all overbearing government. In Maryland, we can take several examples. The first being just how corrupt a State government, even in the South, can become when enough outsiders with hostile views inhabit one area. It is a warning States like Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia should heed sooner, rather than later. But the second example is how fast a foothold can be gained when people decide they have been pushed too far.

It is time all Southrons stand up and decide they have reached this point. Some of us are worse off, and some of us have yet to have our lives altered by this beast. But we all must take a stand for the cause of our independence. The sun is setting on this day and rising on a new one. It’s too late to be apathetic. It’s never too late to stand for the truth.

Behind The Dixie Stars

Warning: Might be extremely upsetting to liberals and those who do not understand history to see a black gentleman who is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and proud that his Grand-Father served under General Forest.

2011 LS National Conference

~ CONFERENCE AGENDA~

Note: Both Online and Mail-In Registration Forms Are Provided At http://DixieNet.org.

Note: For location, and accommodation details please mash here

.

Thursday, 28 July

• 8:00-9:30 p.m :: Annual League of the South Board of Directors Meeting, location TBA

Friday, 29 July

• 8:00-9:00 a.m. :: Registration
• 9:00-9:15 :: Welcome, Opening Prayer, and Entrance of Color Guard: MC Alex Cheek and TBA
• 9:15-10:00 :: Speaker One - Pastor John Weaver: “When It Is Time”
• 10:00-11:00 :: Workshop One - Mike Tubbs & Steve Walker: “Why Reforming the System Is Not Possible”
• 11:00-11:30 :: Break and Musical Entertainment
• 11:30-12:30 p.m. :: Workshop Two - Steve Kropelnicki, Esq.: “General Preparedness For A Societal Breakdown”
• 12:30-2:00 :: Dinner (on your own)
• 2:00-3:00 :: Workshop Three - Mike & Caleb Whorton: “How to Build and Maintain A Local League Chapter”
• 3:00-3:30 :: LS Awards Ceremony: Alex Cheek and Michael Hill
• 3:30-4:00 :: Break and Musical Entertainment
• 4:00-5:00 :: Workshop Four - Franklin Sanders: “Building Community For Independence”
• 5:00-5:10 :: Announcements and Closing Prayer: Alex Cheek and TBA
• 5:10-7:30 :: Supper (on your own)
• 7:30 until . . . :: An Evening of Southern Musical Entertainment

Saturday 30 July

• 8:30-9:00 a.m. :: Registration
• 9:00-9:15 :: Welcome, Opening Prayer, and Entrance of Color Guard: MC Alex Cheek and TBA
• 9:15-10:15 :: Workshop Five - Mrs. Wade Rabun: “Stocking and Maintaining A Home Pantry”
• 10:15-10:30 :: Break
• 10:30-11:30 :: Workshop Six - Wade Rabun: “The Craft of Hunting & Tracking” 10:30-11:30
• 11:30-1:00 p.m. :: Dinner (on your own)
• 1:00-2:00 :: Workshop Seven - Dennis Blanton, Mike Crane, and David Jones: “Emergency Communications”
• 2:00-2:15 :: Prize Presentations
• 2:15-2:30 :: Break
• 2:30-4:00 :: Workshop Eight - Pastor John Weaver and Ed Wolfe: “Basic Gun Safety and Maintenance”
• 4:00-4:15 :: Break
• 4:15-5:00 :: Speaker Two - Michael Hill: “What Would It Take To Get You To Fight?”
• 5:00-5:10 :: Announcements and Closing Prayer: Alex Cheek and TBA
• 5:10-5:15 :: Singing of Our National Anthem and Adjournment

Circle of St. Andrews Supper for LS Presidential Fund Contributors, time and place TBA.

Note To All State Chairmen: There will be no joint meeting of the Board and State Chairmen this year; instead, during the two-day conference, LS President Michael Hill will arrange to meet individually with each State Chairman (or his appointed delegate) to discuss matters pertaining to that particular State League chapter. These meetings will take place both during the conference breaks and in the evening on Friday. Each meeting should last no longer than 15-30 minutes.

‘New York Times’ Memorial Day article attacks the South

May 30, 2011

By Michael

Southern Nationalist Network

 

Establishment paper publishes anti-Southern writer

David W. Blight‘s article for the Establishment’s favourite newspaper, The New York Times, is full of one attack after another on the South. Blight was born, raised and educated in the Deep North, and he is the director of the Gilder-Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance and Abolition at Yale University. He has authored several books on race and Lincoln’s war against the South and has won the Lincoln Prize and the Frederick Douglas Prize. In short, there couldn’t possibly be a more anti-Southern partisan than the likes of David Blight.
Imagine if an openly pro-Southern writer penned an article about the war in the Times. Well, that would be unthinkable. But if the unthinkable happened surely we would hear comments like “Why are they still fighting the war?” Yet, when a Yankee partisan writes a piece that does nothing but attack the South repeatedly all is okay. Why are Yankees so obsessed with defending their invasion of another people, another culture and another government? Precisely because it was an invasion. It takes constant revisionism, excuses and attacks on the enemy (and make no mistake, the traditional South is just as much “the enemy” today – and is treated as such – as it was in 1861) to maintain support for Northern imperialism. If the attacks on the South were ever to stop, the truth would eventually win out and a majority would come to understand the Northern invasion and conquest of Dixie for what it was – with all the implications for the present that this would entail. Once upon a time, the anti-Southern attacks focused around allegations of treason. Today, they generally are focused around “racial justice” and the myths and Leftist politics surrounding that subject. This is Blight’s modis operandi. He makes a living attacking the White Southerner in particular and probably is a true believer in the Yankee righteousness of his crusade.
Blight champions the North in every paragraph throughout his article and misses no opportunities to insult the South and make it appear that racial divisions only existed below the Mason-Dixon line. Indeed, he returns to race again and again. Blight clearly reveals his Northern partisanship and opposition to Southern heritage in the following passage:

In the South, Memorial Day was a means of confronting the Confederacy’s defeat but without repudiating its cause. Some Southern orators stressed Christian notions of noble sacrifice. Others, however, used the ritual for Confederate vindication and renewed assertions of white supremacy. Blacks had a place in this Confederate narrative, but only as time-warped loyal slaves who were supposed to remain frozen in the past.
The Lost Cause tradition thrived in Confederate Memorial Day rhetoric; the Southern dead were honored as the true “patriots,” defenders of their homeland, sovereign rights, a natural racial order and a “cause” that had been overwhelmed by “numbers and resources” but never defeated on battlefields.
Click here for the full article (if you can stomach it).

Anti-racism crusade reaches new level of insanity

May 29, 2011

By Michael

 

Another crazy day on the Left Coast

California public school students have been suspended because they wore white t-shirts. The schools says that this proves they are White supremacists – even though one of them is Asian. No, I didn’t just make this story up, as insane as it sounds. Notice the government school administrator actually defends this nonsense. Azenith Smith covers the story for Fox 35:

Clearly Barack Obama is a White supremacist. Just look at that white t-shirt!

On Wednesday, Soquel High School suspended at least two students. The students say it’s because of allegations, they’re part of a white supremacist group.
“All the girls wore pink, all the sports guys wore tank tops,” says Soquel High Senior Mikey Donnelly. “We were all going to wear white so that was the plan. Just wear white t-shirts to identify ourselves and look back and say that was our group of friends right there.”
Soquel High Senior Mikey Donnelly wore a white t-shirt for his senior class photo Tuesday. About 10 of his friends did the same. That decision may seem harmless. But Soquel High suspended Donnelly for three days because of it. Donnelly said the school told him people were offended and intimidated by his group, claiming they’re a white supremacist gang.

“I do think this is BS,” says Donnelly. “I’m not a white supremacist in any way shape or form. If I did say white power, I would probably say it just as much as I say black power.”
He’s not the only one upset. “I feel disrespected,” says Soquel High Senior David Mine.
Mine also wore a white t-shirt and was also suspended. He’s missing out on finals and that could jeopardize his graduation. “I’m Asian,” says Mine. “I don’t see how I can be a white supremacist. I’m against it completely.” Soquel High Principal Ken Lawrence-Emanuel was very tight-lipped about it, saying students’ punishments are confidential. But told me the school got several complaints about a white pride group on campus.

“Safety is always first at Soquel High,” says Lawrence-Emanuel. “We want to make sure we do everything we can to keep people from feeling and being safe on campus.”
But, the students don’t agree and are ready to fight it. “It’s a pretty bad feeling to be labeled something you’re not,” says Donnelly.

Donnelly said nobody’s ever accused him of being a white supremacist before and plans on appealing the schools decision. He’ll even take it to court if he needs to.

Notice also that that principal says he has gotten complaints about a “White pride” group on campus. Of course, this is different from a White supremacist group. In fact, racial groups are quite common for non-White students. Gay and “trans-gendered” pride groups also exist. But naturally a White pride group – that’s “racist.” There’s an obvious double standard that discriminates against Whites at many schools.  Also, I wonder how an Asian person can be charged with being a White supremacist? That’s the ultimate insanity. And did the students cause any harm by wearing white shirts? No. So, what exactly is being punished here? Unreasonable policies like this is just another reason to avoid government schools when at all possible. The agenda of these institutions is clearly far-Left, politically-correct and anti-White.

Confederate statue crash sparks Reidsville, NC debate

Opponents of Southern heritage claim statue is 'divisive' and 'racist'

The political leaders of Reidsville, North Carolina appear less than enthusiastic about putting the town’s broken statue of a Confederate soldier back up. The statue is now in several parts, due to being hit in an automobile accident. People in the article excerpted below claim that putting the statue back up would signal racism. The soldier statue is even compared to the toppled statue of Saddam Hussein that once stood in Baghdad, Iraq.

“I personally think that the statue should have been gone a million years ago,” said James Monte. “It should have never been put up. It’s foolishness. It’s a symbol of racism.”
Calvert Smith, an employee at the Reidsville Library, said she misses the statue. The library staff has used it for years as a way of giving directions to their facility. However, she would like to see a change to the traffic circle where the statue once stood.

“Instead of focusing on one thing, we could be a lot more inclusive and have a veteran’s memorial,” said Smith. “Make it more inclusive then divisive.”
Smith said that in Reidsville’s history, more than 100 years ago when the statue was placed, there was only one type of veteran in this area, and that was the Confederate soldiers. Now, since our country has had so many wars, there are a lot more veterans to honor.
Racism was a concern for many residents this week. Andre Walkerson said the United States has moved past racism more and more over the years, including having an African-American president, integrating schools and just getting along better.
“There are a lot of different races down here,” said Walkerson. “We’re trying to come together; we don’t want to be divisive.”

Walkerson said he believes the statue is offensive. He said this country is fighting wars based on getting rid of tyranny and when Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad fell in 2003, America rejoiced. But now, Reidsville’s own statue – which Walkerson said stands for similar principles – has fallen, and no one is rejoicing.

…Some people, while agreeing the monument is a part of the city’s history, said they feel Reidsville needs to move forward.
“People come to this city from out of state and they come into this city and they see this statue, that leaves a bad taste in their mouths,” said [James] Monte. “I don’t care about history, it’s 2011.”

Notice that even the defender of the Confederate statue, Calvert Smith, wants to make it part of a general war memorial that would celebrate veterans from the numerous wars in which the United States has involved itself since the 1860s. The Southern soldiers who fought a defensive war for home and country would be grouped with US soldiers who fought to steal part of the Spanish Empire, suppress popular uprisings against foreign occupation in Philippines, invade Iraq, blow up villages in Afghanistan, etc. There is a great moral difference between those who fought a justified defensive war and those who engaged in imperialism. As well, putting the Confederate state as part of a US war memorial would certainly take away much of the significance of the statue. The central identifying nature of the statue, as it stood in the middle of town and proclaimed the area Southern and loyal to the South, would be gone.

Also, consider the arguments of those who oppose the statue, such as Andre Walkerson. He says plainly that the statue is one of racism and “we don’t want to be divisive.” How does a soldiers’ monument signal racism? And if the goal is not to be divisive then surely nothing could ever be displayed for someone is always going to object to and be offended by any symbol – including the US flag and US war memorials. Notice too the words of James Monte: “I don’t care about history, it’s 2011.” The willful ignorance of such a statement would be unbelievable in previous ages. And what about the “need to move forward” argument? What does this even mean? How does removing a statue move anything forward? Does erasing history and knowing nothing about history, like James Monte, mean one has moved forward? Of course, it’s 2011. In that, Mr. Monte is correct. But what does the year have to do with forgetting or not caring about history? By the same argument, Rome should destroy the Colosseum – after all, it’s 2011 and we don’t care about history any more. Yes, many people love the Colosseum, but others do not. And surely, some bad things happened in the Colosseum and therefore we should destroy it and forget it ever existed, right? This is the logic of Mr. Monte and Mr. Walkerson.

If you would like to encourage the politicians in Reidsville to do the right thing and put the Confederate statue back up, you can contact city hall at:

Reidsville City Hall
230 W. Morehead St.
Reidsville, NC 27320
Also, please contact Mayor Festerman at:
Mayor James K. Festerman
1201 Benton Lane , Reidsville, N.C. 27320
Phone: 349-6146
Fax: 616-0850
Email: mayor@ci.reidsville.nc.us

Ex parte Merryman and Abraham Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus

This day in history

In 1863, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney issued ex parte Merryman to challenge the authority of Abraham Lincoln and the military to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Maryland. Lincoln, enraged, orders Taney's arrest.

by Andrew Young
by Andrew Young

After the outbreak of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, claiming emergency powers, suspended habeas corpus, a person’s right to have a judge determine the legality of his imprisonment.  Lincoln authorized the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone suspected of aiding the rebels.  This decision outraged many of Lincoln’s contemporaries, and has been a subject of debate for constitutional scholars ever since.  Roger Taney, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during Lincoln’s presidency, voiced particular outrage in his Ex parte Merryman opinion.  The following essay will summarize Taney’s arguments against Lincoln’s claim of executive power, arguing that Taney’s interpretation of the Constitution is superior to Lincoln’s.

According to historians David Donald and James Randall, Lincoln relied on arbitrary arrests for political expediency.  If Lincoln had exclusively utilized the courts to judge cases of suspected treason, he would have convicted few, since the Constitution sets strict requirements for a treason conviction.  Moreover, those who were convicted might become martyrs and incite more resistance.  Therefore, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and allowed the military to conduct arbitrary arrests.

Lincoln gave several more diplomatic justifications for suspending habeas corpus.  First, he formulated a “doctrine of necessity.”  Since the president takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, he must violate it during emergencies to preserve the government.  Sometimes we amputate limbs to preserve life; similarly, presidents must occasionally violate the Constitution to save it.  Second, Lincoln offered two constitutional justifications for his actions.  He cited the president’s duty to make sure that the nation’s laws are faithfully executed; since disloyal Northerners could prevent Lincoln from “faithfully executing” law, he could suspend their right to habeas corpus. He then cited the commander-in-chief clause of the Constitution, claiming that, as commander-in-chief in wartime, he had “a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy.”

Before considering Ex parte Merryman, we should discuss the events that led Taney to write the opinion.  In May 1861, Union General George Cadwalader ordered John Merryman’s arrest for being “an active secessionist sympathizer.”  Under Cadwalader’s order, Merryman was held in a military prison at Fort McHenry.  When Taney, who was on circuit duty, demanded that Cadwalader allow him to judge the legality of Merryman’s detainment, Cadwalader refused, citing Lincoln’s orders.  Taney then attempted to hold Cadwalader in contempt, but Union soldiers refused to admit the marshal who tried to serve him Taney’s writ.  Thereafter, a frustrated Taney wrote his Merryman opinion.  

In his Ex parte Merryman opinion, Chief Justice Roger Taney addresses Lincoln’s claims of sweeping executive power.  He directly challenges Lincoln’s claim that his duty to faithfully execute the nation’s laws justifies the suspension of habeas corpus.  The clause that requires the president to “faithfully execute” the laws, Taney says, does not permit him to “execute them himself, or through agents or officers, civil or military.”  Instead, the president’s duty is to assure that no outside force interferes with the government’s execution of the laws.  Therefore, he must help the judicial branch if some outside force threatens the judiciary’s power; he does not have the right to utilize the military to usurp judicial authority.

Taney also challenges Lincoln’s assertion that emergencies require the executive to usurp congressional and judicial authority.  Near the end of the opinion, he says that, if the executive branch can, in any situation, overstep other branches, then “the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws.”  In Taney’s view, the Constitution is not a mere suggestion of how government should operate under ideal circumstances.  Instead, it is a concrete document to which the executive must adhere at all times, including times of emergency.  If presidents can abandon the Constitution “upon any pretext or under any circumstances,” the Constitution means nothing.   

Perhaps most importantly, Taney says the framers never intended for the executive to suspend habeas corpus.  He offers mounds of evidence to support this contention.  First, he cites a major crisis during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency.  Aaron Burr, Jefferson’s vice president, led a conspiracy to seize territory around New Orleans to form a new country.  During this time, Jefferson actually wanted to suspend the writ, but wrote that he lacked the authority.  Instead, he suggested that Congress exercise its power to suspend habeas corpus. 

Second, he writes that the framers, fearing a liberal interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, which gives Congress the right to pass any law deemed “necessary and proper” for carrying out its duties, listed several fundamental rights that cannot be violated.  It is not a coincidence, Taney says, that the first right listed is the writ of habeas corpus, which may only be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion.

Third, Taney argues that it defies common sense to believe the framers would have trusted the executive with the right to suspend habeas corpus.  They had just broken away from a powerful, despotic English monarch.  Therefore, they distrusted a powerful executive, especially one who could arrest citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial.  As evidence, Taney cites the strict limits Article 2 places on the executive, such as the requirement for congressional approval of treaties with foreign nations and his short term of office.



Taney persuasively argues that the Constitution expressly denies the executive the right to suspend habeas corpus, even going so far as to say “I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was do difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of Congress.”  To support this contention, Taney cites Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which gives Congress alone the power to suspend Habeas Corpus.  He also cites the fact that Article 1 “is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department.” To further support his case, Taney discusses Article 2 of the Constitution, which deals with the executive branch.  Taney writes that “if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article.”  However, Article 2 never gives the president this power.

Taney quotes his predecessors on the Supreme Court to bolster his arguments.  Justice Joseph Story, for example, once wrote that “It would seem, as the power is given to Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus…that the right to judge whether the exigency had arisen must exclusively belong to that body.”  Moreover, he refers to an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall.  Marshall’s opinion says that, if suspending the writ is necessary for public safety, only Congress may do so.  Until Congress suspends the writ, the courts must maintain habeas corpus.  To capitalize on the high esteem most Americans give Marshall, Taney says “I can add nothing to these clear and emphatic words of my great predecessor.”
The influence of English common law on America’s legal system, Taney argues, supports his position.  For centuries, the English dealt with monarchs who arbitrarily imprisoned their own citizens.  Therefore, they, like the framers, denied executives the authority to suspend habeas corpus.  Taney quotes English judge William Blackstone at length, who once wrote that “But the happiness of our constitution is, that it is not left to the executive power to determine when the danger of the state is so great as to render this measure expedient.” Though Taney concedes that the English and American systems differ greatly, he reminds readers that “upon this subject they (English judges) are entitled to the highest respect, and are justly regarded and received as authoritative by our courts of justice.”

Even if Congress had suspended habeas corpus, Taney argues, Merryman should still be released.  Cadwalader did not have probable cause to detain Merryman.  Taney correctly points out that Cadwalader never produced any witnesses to support his accusations, nor did he bother to specify “the acts which, in the judgment of the military officer, constituted these crimes.” Furthermore, even if the suspension of habeas corpus were legal, the military could not refuse to cooperate with the judicial branch.  Though the military can arrest private citizens, it must immediately transfer them to civil authorities.
On the question of the framers’ original intent, Taney’s view is clearly the correct one.  The framers would never have wanted the executive to have the power to suspend habeas corpus under any circumstances; they repeatedly criticized their previous ruler, the English king, for similar behavior.  For example, in the “Declaration of Independence,” Thomas Jefferson attacks King George because he “has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.” Lincoln, by allowing the military to arbitrarily arrest private citizens and sidestep judicial authority, differed little from George III.  Moreover, as Taney points out, during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, when most of the framers were still in government, no one, even during a time of crisis (the Burr conspiracy), believed the president could suspend habeas corpus.  Nor did President James Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” claim sweeping executive powers during the War of 1812, as Tom DiLorenzo has written.

Even if we do not consider the framers’ original intent, Taney’s interpretation is clearly superior; as Taney writes, this should be “one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion.”  Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to suspend habeas corpus.  If the president had the power to suspend habeas corpus, it would be found in Article 2, which deals with the executive branch; it is not.  

Many of Lincoln’s defenders concede the unconstitutionality of his suspension of habeas corpus, but argue that, although the suspension was dictatorial, Lincoln was a “good dictator.”  James G. Randall even called Lincoln a “benevolent dictator,” a phrase many would consider an oxymoron.  However, it is easy for those who never suffered the effects of Lincoln’s “benevolent” dictatorship to defend him.  John Merryman, who was arrested in his home without probable cause, would disagree with Randall’s analysis.  So would Francis Key Howard, who spent two years in military prison at Fort McHenry and wrote a book about his experience there called The American Bastille. Moreover, what is the Constitution worth if one man (the president), under a pretext of his choosing, can decide to ignore it?

After Taney issued his Merryman opinion, which President Lincoln ignored, the Lincoln administration increased its usurpation of judicial and congressional powers.  Lincoln, incensed by Taney’s defense of civil liberties, issued a warrant for his arrest.  Several sources corroborate this controversial warrant.  First, the private papers of Lincoln’s former law partner, Ward Hill Laman (who was a Federal Marshal at the time) contain a reference to the warrant, saying “After due consideration the administration decided upon the arrest of the chief justice.”  Second, Taney warned friends that he may be arrested, including George Brown, the future mayor of Baltimore.  Fortunately, no one could find a marshal who was willing to arrest an 84-year-old judge.
Lincoln’s attempt to arrest Taney helps prove Taney’s accusation that Lincoln was willing to usurp judicial authority and endanger American liberty.  Lincoln not only ignored an order from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; he even tried to have the judge arrested.  If Lincoln had succeeded in arresting Taney, he would have virtually destroyed the separation of powers upon which this nation was founded.  How can the judiciary maintain its independence if the president can have the Chief Justice arrested for merely issuing an opinion with which he disagrees?
Donald and Randall’s analysis also supports Taney’s opinion.  If Lincoln decided to suspend habeas corpus simply because he feared that he could gain few treason convictions, he viewed the Constitution as an obstacle to be sidestepped, not a foundation for preserving liberty.  Furthermore, his belief that he would attain few convictions supports Taney’s claims.  After declaring that the military lacked probable cause in the Merryman case, Taney concluded that the government probably lacked evidence for many of its other arrests and encouraged other judges to demand writs of habeas corpus. Lincoln’s cynicism helps show that Taney was correct. 

President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus lacked both moral and constitutional justification.  It confined thousands in military prisons for opposing war and voided years of jurisprudence.  The Constitution never gives the president the right to suspend habeas corpus, nor can that right be inferred from the commander-in-chief clause or the president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws.  Lincoln’s suspension was not only illegal; it was also dangerous, threatening the separation of powers that prevents any one branch of government from becoming too powerful.  Moreover, his actions inspired future presidents to ignore the Constitution during times of crisis.  Especially today, with the post-9/11 crackdown on civil liberties, Americans would be wise to reread Ex parte Merryman.

WV panel denies funds over H.K. Edgerton

May 26, 2011

By The Masked Walnut

 

Commission discriminates against Southrons

In a clear case of discrimination and hiding the truth about the War for Southern Independence, the West Virginia Sesquicentennial Commission denied funding to the Guyandotte Civil War Days festival committee because they planned to have author, lecturer, and Southern patriot H.K. Edgerton as their keynote speaker. I wouldn’t call the following article “pro-South” either.

In its first meeting since half of its citizen members resigned in protest, the West Virginia Sesquicentennial Commission Tuesday awarded four community program grants totaling $11,160 — but tabled one funding request because of the event’s controversial keynote speaker.

The Guyandotte Civil War Days festival committee requested a $2,547 grant to help fund its annual re-enactment of the Nov. 10, 1861, Confederate raid of the Cabell County community.
Commissioners voiced concerns over the event’s planned keynote speaker, H.K. Edgerton, a pro-Confederate author and lecturer who contends that large numbers of slaves “went to war with their masters” to fight against the Union.

Edgerton, who is black, headed a 2002-03 “March Across Dixie,” defending the Confederate flag as a symbol of the South. He also contends that slavery was not a significant factor leading to the Civil War [sic].

“This guy’s been very controversial from time to time,” Commissioner Rick Wolfe said Tuesday.
Victor Thacker, a dean at Davis & Elkins College, added, “The last thing we need to do as historians is give more bad history to our students.”Commissioners debated Tuesday whether to award the grant but exclude any funding for Edgerton’s appearance.

However, since any events that receive commission grants are permitted to use the state sesquicentennial logo in advertising and promotional materials, there was concern that any sponsorship would appear to be an implicit state endorsement of Edgerton. The meeting was the first since four of the eight citizen members of the commission, including vice chairman, noted Shepherd University historian Mark Snell, resigned over concerns the commission is emphasizing tourist-friendly festivals and re-enactments over educational and academic efforts.
Education and Arts Secretary Kay Goodwin, who serves as commission chairwoman, downplayed the divisiveness Tuesday.
“As you can see, this is a very talkative and opinionated group, and we’re happy to have that,” she said after Tuesday’s meeting. “We were sad to lose those who resigned.”
Later Tuesday, Goodwin issued a two-page statement defending the commission’s decision to provide what she termed “much-appreciated support for local groups organizing their own events.” She stated, “A minority of the commission’s original members disagreed with the decision to fund community programs, and, unfortunately, some members chose to resign because of that disagreement. “There is no question, however, that assisting local sesquicentennial commemorations falls squarely within the commission’s mission: to promote awareness, celebrate the unique creation of the state of West Virginia and the role of its people during the Civil War [sic] era, and its continuing effect on our people,” Goodwin stated.
Culture and History Commissioner Randall Reid-Smith, who participated in the meeting via teleconference, commented, “We commemorate the sesquicentennial of the Civil War [sic], and we celebrate statehood.

That comment was apparently directed at Snell, who in a Sunday Gazette-Mail article faulted Reid-Smith for the commission’s emphasis on promoting festivals and re-enactments. Snell went on to say he believes it is inappropriate to treat the 150th anniversary of America’s bloodiest conflict as a celebration.