http://dixieoutfitters.com

SHNV's Supporters for Apr. 2012:
Brock Townsend
Faithful Southron, THANK YOU!!


Southern Heritage <br>News and Views: CONFEDERATE SONS RESPOND TO AL SHARPTON

Saturday, December 18, 2010

CONFEDERATE SONS RESPOND TO AL SHARPTON

Columbia, TN, December 18, 2010

The Commander-in-Chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Michael Givens, has responded to Rev. Al Sharpton regarding remarks he made on the Ed Show on MSNBC regarding the Secession Ball being held on December 20 in Charleston, South Carolina.

Rev. Sharpton, along with many in the media have mistakenly stated the ball is being sponsored by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. This is not true. It is sponsored by a separate heritage organization. Many individual members of the SCV support the ball and the historical observance associated with it.

In a letter addressed to Rev. Sharpton at the National Action Network in Harlem, New York, Commander Givens stressed several points. These include:

"You sadly accused the attendees of this event of celebrating treason." You continued by adding they will be celebrating men that fought and killed and died to overthrow the United States government."

CiC Givens continued. "These accusations are patently and historically wrong. In 1860, secession was not considered an act of treason. Secession had been suggested by northern states previously and their lives were not in peril for the suggestion. Texas had recently seceded from Mexico to join the United States. This was sanctioned and embraced by the United States government, including Abraham Lincoln. In fact, the United States was created due to a secession of the colonies from the government of Great Britain. Would you suggest an evil intent is behind the celebration of the Fourth of July on these same grounds?"

Commander Givens also wrote "I assure you the Secession Ball is neither a celebration of treason nor of the repressive institution of slavery. Let us all agree that slavery is the darkest chapter in American history. Let's rejoice of its demise, learn from the past and make our country better."

Givens further wrote "The people attending the ball will be celebrating the courageous spirit and tenacity of their Confederate ancestors, black, brown and white that fought to protect their homes from invasion."

The letter closed stating "Instead of casting aspersions and slandering folks, let's come together as Americans and prove to the world that our country is truly great. Why don't we start this, you and I. Let's sit together, discuss our differences and discover our commonalities while doing some good for our country. Contact me anytime."

6 Comments:

Anonymous Zeeboe said...

Defenders of secession, then and now, stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the difference between secession (a legal separation) and revolution (a illegal separation, or more accurately, a violation of unjust human law sanctioned by natural law).

This lead some critics to accuse Mr. Lincoln of being caught in a contradiction because he opposed Southern secession in 1861 but, allegedly, he had defended secession in his earlier political career.

President Lincoln did indeed speak those words while voicing his concerns about the Mexican-American War in a speech before the House of Representatives in 1848. But most who quote him fail to quote what Mr. Lincoln said next.

The right that is "most valuable," according to President Lincoln, is a "most sacred" right--implying it is a nature given right, not a legal one--which Mr. Lincoln identified as the right to "revolutionize". After invoking The United States of America's "own revolution", President Lincoln goes on to explain that the "sacred" right to "revolutionize" cannot be a right granted by positive law or by government because "it is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws, but to break up both, and make new ones."

The sacred right of revolution, in other words, is not the same as a legal right of secession and therefore, Mr. Lincoln's 1848 speech defending revolution did not contradict his later opposition to Southern secession which was illegal.

President Lincoln consistently maintained that the people of the Southern states, like all people, possessed a natural right of revolution, but not a legal right of secession, a distinction, that was and continues to be, blurred or ignored by many Lincoln critics.

9:12 AM  
Anonymous Zeeboe said...

The U.S. Constitution contains no provision for it's own demise. Only two conditions might bring about the end of the American constitutional union: One is if some Americans violate the United States Constitution itself and infringe on the rights of others causing others to exercise their natural right to replace the Constitution and reestablish a new government (an act authorized not by the written law of the Constitution, but by natural law).

Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution places important restrictions on powers states might otherwise exercise. The third paragraph of that section in particular commands that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress...enter into any agreement or compact with another state."

In other words, states may enter into an "agreement" or a "compact" the other states, but only with the consent of Congress.

Some states may find it useful, economically, socially, or otherwise, to make certain agreements with others regarding the use of a common river or mineral rights for adjacent lands, but the requirement that Congress consent to such agreements ensures that they are not designed to injure the common good or the integrity of the Union.

Any agreement between individual states must be authorized by a constitutional majority of Americans as represented in Congress.

The first paragraph of Article I, Section 10 is even more prohibitory: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."

Further, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution authorizes the national government to "guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government", meaning that the national government has the constitutional power to oppose any monarchial or any other non-republican form of government that one or several of the states might attempt to implement.


In regards of the American War for Independence and the American Civil War - Respectfully, there is a difference. The American Colonies never consented to crown rule. It was imposed upon them. The laws then were passed with one purpose - To keep them a subjugated country. The Southern states freely joined, and submitted to the Union.

The American revolutionaries of 1776 understood themselves as lawbreakers. They were openly violating the laws of Britain because they believed those laws were unjust by the standard of the natural law. Every signer of the United States Declaration of Independence, including John Hancock, who famously offered his signature in large script so that King George III could read his name without spectacles, understood that he risked execution for treason if caught by the British.

Can one imagine anything more preposterous then the suggestion that the British subjects living in North America under the authority of King George III possessed a legal right of secession? Why had monarchy survived as long as it had in Europe if Europeans living under Kings had possessed a legal of secession all along?

9:12 AM  
Anonymous Zeeboe said...

The U.S. Constitution contains no provision for it's own demise. Only two conditions might bring about the end of the American constitutional union: One is if some Americans violate the United States Constitution itself and infringe on the rights of others causing others to exercise their natural right to replace the Constitution and reestablish a new government (an act authorized not by the written law of the Constitution, but by natural law).

Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution places important restrictions on powers states might otherwise exercise. The third paragraph of that section in particular commands that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress...enter into any agreement or compact with another state."

In other words, states may enter into an "agreement" or a "compact" the other states, but only with the consent of Congress.

Some states may find it useful, economically, socially, or otherwise, to make certain agreements with others regarding the use of a common river or mineral rights for adjacent lands, but the requirement that Congress consent to such agreements ensures that they are not designed to injure the common good or the integrity of the Union.

Any agreement between individual states must be authorized by a constitutional majority of Americans as represented in Congress.

The first paragraph of Article I, Section 10 is even more prohibitory: "No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation."

Further, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution authorizes the national government to "guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government", meaning that the national government has the constitutional power to oppose any monarchial or any other non-republican form of government that one or several of the states might attempt to implement.


In regards of the American War for Independence and the American Civil War - Respectfully, there is a difference. The American Colonies never consented to crown rule. It was imposed upon them. The laws then were passed with one purpose - To keep them a subjugated country. The Southern states freely joined, and submitted to the Union.

The American revolutionaries of 1776 understood themselves as lawbreakers. They were openly violating the laws of Britain because they believed those laws were unjust by the standard of the natural law. Every signer of the United States Declaration of Independence, including John Hancock, who famously offered his signature in large script so that King George III could read his name without spectacles, understood that he risked execution for treason if caught by the British.

Can one imagine anything more preposterous then the suggestion that the British subjects living in North America under the authority of King George III possessed a legal right of secession? Why had monarchy survived as long as it had in Europe if Europeans living under Kings had possessed a legal of secession all along?

9:13 AM  
Blogger Palindrome said...

Why not invite Rev. Al to the ball?

Why not offer him free admission, a place at the Commander's table, and a chance to speak his mind?

The usual response by the SCV is to grovel, pass lame resolutions condemning racism and the Klan, and find black "confederates" to defend the Confederacy MY ancestors fought and died for.

Face the facts: the NAACP and Al Sharpton are going to terrorize the ball and probably get it canceled. Why should we make excuses for the Confederacy to them or any other black militants?

9:46 AM  
Blogger jdawg569 said...

isn't Al Sharpton suppose to be a reverend? and Jessie Jackson? Why then do they want to erase the history that in the end set them free? The war did not start out about slavery, it was about taxes ever heard of the stamp act of 1838, Why do you think South Carolina was the first to succeed, not about slavery but about the federal tariff to pay dept's for the American Revolution. when they did not Lincoln tried to make them that's why they left the union and Lincoln sent troops to capture them. Sharpton has no clue he is the one that spreads race hate, when he is suppose to be a Godly man. ML King did so much that men like sharpton has torn down. Ask him about tawna brawley then let him cast any stone about anyone elese.

10:28 PM  
Anonymous Bill Vallante said...

Just now having seen Zeeboe's critique, I respond with my own. Check your history Zeeboe. Look at it carefully and reflect on that part of the Declaration of Independence which states that all government derives its power from the consent of the governed. It is a principle that the Founders risked their very lives for. Then ask yourself if they would deny this right to their posterity by approving membership in a union that their posterity could never escape from, should that union ever become detrimental to their well being?

http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/vallante-treason-founders012911.phtml

Lincoln's decision to use force to prevent secession was Lincoln's alone. He interpreted the rules as he saw fit. The history of the Republic was NOT on his side, nor was the Constitution. What was on his side was a population of over 22 million from which drew an army of over 2 million, and an industrial capacity 10 times that of those he eventually subjugated. There is no constitutionality in what he did. There is only the principle of "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT."

5:45 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Please LIKE my
Freedom Watch
Facebook page
share it with friends


Please LIKE my
Southern Heritage News
& Views Facebook page
share it with friends.