To The Protesters of North Carolina's State Monuments and the Agitators Regarding the State History: | Eastern North Carolina Now

Every day I get angrier and angrier at people who act out their aggressions which are based on lies, mistruths, and liberal indoctrination. I'm talking about the desecration and the toppling of the Silent Sam monument at Chapel Hill

The Most Effective Means of Protesting is to MOVE OUT & STAY OUT of NORTH CAROLINA !!

Silent Sam, once in Chapel Hill
    Every day I get angrier and angrier at people who act out their aggressions which are based on lies, mistruths, and liberal indoctrination. I'm talking about the desecration and the toppling of the Silent Sam monument at Chapel Hill - a monument dedicated NOT to the Confederate cause and NOT to the support of slavery and NOT in support of white supremacy, but rather erected simply to remember the 1000 or so young men who were students at Chapel Hill during the years 1861-65 who enlisted and fought for their state. The monument to those young men was akin to a headstone or other grave marker, or even to the Tomb to the Unknown Soldier. And yet, a group of protesters, many from the hate/home-grown terrorist group Antifa, sought to tear it down.

    I'm sorry, but these people need to study their history before acting out like a bunch of mental defective crybabies, destroying public property, and disrespecting the sacrifice of those who fought in a war that they didn't ask for and probably couldn't even comprehend why it was being forced on them. *Hint: It has NOTHING to do with slavery or white supremacy. For those looking for the true committed white supremacists, look to Abraham Lincoln himself and his party affiliates), and look to the northern and western states/territories).

    North Carolina did NOT want to secede. It had great affection and loyalty to the Union, despite all the efforts the North took to tax her and the other southern states discriminately and punishingly and to frustrate and harm her interests. In fact, it was the last state to secede. The reason it seceded was because Abraham Lincoln, thru his War Secretary, Simon Cameron, demanded that North Carolina send thousands of troops to "put down the rebellion" in the wake of Fort Sumter (ie, to invade the South and wage war against her). The Governor of NC, John Ellis, replied on April 15: "I regard the levy of troops made by the administration as a usurpation of authority. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country and to the war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina."

    The next month, the state called a convention to consider secession and this time, on May 20, 1861, the people of the state voted to approve an Ordinance of Secession from the United States. [Only three months earlier, in February, North Carolinians by popular vote refused to even call a convention to consider a Secession Ordinance. That's how strongly they wishes to remain a part of the Union, EVEN as hostilities grew against the south and against its institution of slavery, and even as sentiment was growing and getting more heated for its abolition].

    So, the REAL history of North Carolina and the Civil War (more aptly, the War of Northern Aggression or the War to Prevent Southern Independence), is that she seceded ONLY when Lincoln gave her the ultimatum: If she was to remain in the Union, she would need to pick up arms and wage war against her neighbors, the states she was close to and the ones she had far more in common with than any in the North. North Carolina seceded over principle. She seceded over the proper construction of the US Constitution and the authority it granted to each of the branches of government in DC and especially as that power with respect to the sovereignty of each individual state. She did NOT understand the Constitution (nor would she have ever ratified it) to have the power to force or coerce one state to wage war or engage in violence against another state, and MOST especially, to do so for the government's bidding, to further its ambitious agenda, or to consolidate power in the federal government).

    She did NOT secede over slavery, she did NOT secede over any white supremacy agenda, she did NOT secede to further any oppression against black persons....... She seceded on principle. She seceded in support of the greatest government principle of all - the federal government was created for only limited purposes and when a government exceeds its delegated authority, it becomes tyrannical and ambitious and the people - ANY people - when they so decide, have the natural right to alter or abolish that government and establish a new one that suits them better.

    The Silent Sam incident serves to show us here in North Carolina that our state history is not known and is not being properly taught. It is a proud and distinguished history. Perhaps the remedy is to gut the political and history departments of our state universities and have their programs reviewed by state historians to make sure that accurate and respectful history is taught, and not some progressive/liberal view that seeks to taint her principles that serves its purposes: to excuses the gross constitutional violations of Abraham Lincoln and his administration, that justifies his willing slaughter of over 620,000 Americans, that justifies the government's initiation and prosecution of the war, that justifies the consolidation of government power over the states, and that justifies the grand monument to Lincoln on the national mall ("He saved the nation! He preserved the Union!")

    As I have said for years in describing the notion that Lincoln "saved the Union" - LINCOLN SAVING THE UNION IS LIKE A HUSBAND BEATING HIS WIFE TO SAVE THE MARRIAGE.

    Don't let North Carolina down. Remember the principles she, at one time, held so dear. Remember the cause she so honorably and so generously gave. Preserve her history and her honor.
Go Back

Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )


( September 11th, 2018 @ 12:56 pm )
"The laws should protect 'property rights' regardless of ownership."

That is the key here. Most cronies and Liberals are more interested in fitting in with the upper crust cocktail crowd than being concerned about anyone's property rights other than their own.

I know that sounds cynical, but still, this statement is far more true than not.
( September 10th, 2018 @ 10:30 am )
Good point, I think the idea I was trying to convey was the basic difference between property and happiness.
"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

When Jefferson changed "property" to the "pursuit of happiness" he introduced a concept instead of a concrete based right. Pursuit can be interpreted in numerous ways. While happiness may sound better than property (particularly with the issue of slavery as property) it leaves open the expansion of rights to feelings and wishes. Jefferson is my favorite anarchist of the founding fathers, but his eloquence with words (B$) belied his deeply held distrust in government in this case.

The laws should protect 'property rights' regardless of ownership. It is just that when we have "public property" we have conferred individual rights to an institution and perhaps the same could be said for corporations.
( September 9th, 2018 @ 9:48 am )
I would to agree with you all these many counts except, I'm not sure if the private sector should own any more property than it already does, especially with cronyism and stupidity ruling so supremely right now.

The richest people in America lean Liberal, and their liberal, hypocritical, non capitalist policies do not affect them so much as their policies affect the rest of us.

We have laws on the books to protect our public property, and Liberals must follow the laws like the rest of us.
( September 1st, 2018 @ 7:58 am )
As usual, I was imprecise in my comment. Fortunately The point that I was trying to make was expressed so well in this link below on this very site. To me it is not a matter of Confederate statues , it is a matter of rule of law. I have gradually evolved into the belief that statues and monuments should not displayed or maintained on public land because of the very fact that opinions can change and history can be revised or reviled from either side. I might even go so far as to say that our government already controls too much land and should not be in a position of ownership, but perhaps be tenants in privately owned and maintained properties. Perhaps the marketplace is the best place to determine the value of statues, bust and other memorials to history. If all such monuments were placed in a pay to see private locations we might get back to limited government. People could vote with their dollars. Unfortunately, that may make me a far ????-? Libertarian, who has veered into the ditch that used to be part of the individualism that this country was founded upon. That is based my belief that it is not a slippery slope but a cliff.
( August 31st, 2018 @ 8:07 pm )
This is a Southern matter, and you are well qualified to pontificate on all things southern, especially the War of Northern Aggression.

Georgia was terribly burned and ravaged by W.T. Sherman, and North Carolina lost more of their population to the war than any other southern state. You (we) are extra qualified to discuss thee disgusting overprivileged children destroying something that they do not have the base intelligence to understand.

Taking down Silent Sam was a full blown party for the stupid, of which Chapel Hill keeps a regular supply, and as many as can be prosecuted should be.
( August 31st, 2018 @ 5:59 pm )
Since it is a NC matter, I probably should not put my two cents in but my general feeling is that the best way to relieve courts and unburden prosecutors is to reduce the useless laws and prosecute laws that involve property damage, personal injury, abuse of rights etc. Allowing the judicial system to operate at the whim of appointed or election magistrates is fraught with political bias which defeats the intent of the law. I am not a fan of mandatory sentences but determination of guilt should not rest with prosecutors it should rest with the court system. Not bringing a case makes laws a mute subject and adds to the disregard for laws by a significant segment of the population.

A quick check of the purpose of law at numerous sites indicates: (Note minimally acceptable behavior)

"The law serves many purposes and functions in society. Four principal purposes and functions are establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and protecting liberties and rights. The law is a guidepost for minimally acceptable behavior in society."
( August 31st, 2018 @ 10:35 am )
Bobby Tony, Good Point!

Are you not tired of politicians trying to do the popular thing rather than the right thing.
( August 30th, 2018 @ 10:38 am )
This may fall under the FBI's Comey's 'no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case' doctrine, which I am sure Joshua Stein the current Attorney General of North Carolina subscribes too. Elections do indeed have consequences.

"North Carolina - The destruction of property crime in North Carolina is written as Willfull and Wanton Injury to Property. If the prosecution has probable cause to believe you willfully and wantonly damaged, injured, or destroyed any property (whether public or private), you could be charged with Willful and Wanton Injury to Property in the North Carolina Criminal Courts.

Willful and Wanton Injury to Property is a Class 1 misdemeanor which carries a potential sentence of up to 1 year in jail."
( August 29th, 2018 @ 6:10 pm )
Or lack there of (historical knowledge). I am in full agreement Ted.
( August 29th, 2018 @ 4:10 pm )
Breaking to law should result in jail time regardless of historical knowledge.

Bombshell Report: FBI Never Examined Vast Majority Of Emails On Weiner's Laptop, Despite Comey's Claims Local News & Expression, Editorials, For Love of God and Country, Op-Ed & Politics The Color of August


Back to Top