Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
According to the San Antonio Express-News, they will also protest the War in Iraq.
Freedom of Speech aside, it just irks me that a hate group should be allowed to stage a protest at a sacred site to both North and South.
__________________ F. S. Powers
Union Ancersor: Pvt Arnuah Norton, 60th Ohio. (G-G-G Grandfather) Died at Salisbury NC, November 3, 1864
Confederate Ancestors: Captain Thomas A. Morrow, 29th Texas Cavalry (G-G-G- Uncle) and 2LT George W. Morrow, 31st Texas Cavalry (G-G-G Grandfather). Both survived the war
I wish they'd have done their protesting when the bikers were there.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The local press is saying that the permit was granted as a war protest and not as a Klan rally, based on freedom of speech. A similar protest took place last year, not Klan but war protesters. They were pretty much ignored by the locals and tourists. They carried signs saying "honk if you are against the war" and yelled at passing cars but nobody honked or interacted with them in any way.
Hopefully everyone will take the moral high ground again and these flakes will be ignored.
Hmmm, let me get this straight- war protesters, and flag burners by extension, can exercise a right of free speech. But the Klan can't? This certainly does not sound like a fair distribution of a Constitutionally protected 'right.'
I like what the Klan has to say as much as the next American. But just as idiotic war protesters have a 'right' to protest and demonstrate, cannot the idiotic Klan claim this same 'right'?
Like them or not- war protesters or the Klan, abortionists or terrorists, but they do force us to examine what we believe in, what our prejudices are, and just what a 'right' is and how 'equally' it might be applied.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Hopefully everyone will take the moral high ground again and these flakes will be ignored.
I think that will probably be the case this time too. Nine bald guys will show up in brown shirts, wearing swastikas, and shouting "Sieg heil", for a few hours, then go back to the bridge they live under, and pick up where they left off with the glue and paint sniffing. Will probably be a very forgettable experience. They had about 25 of those guys at the Denver Co. courthouse one day, when I lived out there. They even had a microphone. A few people looked in their direction and then went on their way. It was a non-event.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
yep, that's the best way to get them to quit. they are hurting for members right now, having suffered severe losses in terms of finance from lawsuits in the past, plus most of the popluation do not stand for their ideals. I know i don't. so boycott their gathering and they will melt away into the darkness.
I didn't mean to imply that the permit was granted only because this is scheduled as a war protest. In the newspaper article (which I have since thrown away), the park superintendant stated that the permit was granted on the basis of free speech and that priviledge covers all opinions, even those that may not be in synch with popular sentiment (paraphrase).
Last month a similar protest took place at Antietam/Sharpsburg and went down with no problems. My biggest concern is that again, an unpopular demonstration will cost the town needed funds that will go to extra security instead of municipal maintenance.
My biggest concern is that again, an unpopular demonstration will cost the town needed funds that will go to extra security instead of municipal maintenance.
I suppose the municipality would get sued if it didn't provide protection. Is Gettysburg responsible for what happens in the park? Serious question, but way off topic.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The park is federal territory (with a municipal right of way for certain designated "through" streets like Howard Ave, Wheatfield Road and Confederate Ave), subject to federal laws and patrolled by the law enforcement wing of the rangers. It is my understanding that in the event that something happens that exceeds the rangers' ability to control they can call upon municipal and state resources for assistance.
In town, federal property is also under their jurisdiction. That covers places like Wills House and, I believe, the various markers and monuments situated on town or private property (with a federal right of way). Everything else is the domain of the G'Burg and State police.
The demonstration is scheduled for the grassy area (federal) between Ziegler's woods (federal) and Steinweir Ave (municipal), so it falls under federal jurisdiction. However, cars (and wandering protesters) on Steinweir are on town property. Confused?
Nope. You've explained it quite clearly. Thanks.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
An attempt to desecrate Gettysburg 
Linear Mode
