Should the Sons of Confederates Veterans get their license plates?

[Pogo]

Florida can do that already. As can any state.
What makes you think SCOTUS would trifle with this sort of triviality?

Florida currently cannot do so without being taken to court though.

What gives you that idea?

Because the issue hasn't been settled in the SCOTUS. So if SCOTUS sides with Texas, Florida won't have to worry about a thing. They wont have to accept anything they consider too offensive.

Again I ask -- why would SCOTUS be trifling with crap like this?
It ain't rocket surgery -- the license plate belongs to the state, not the car owner. What happens if you sell your car? You have to return the plate to the state. Therefore they make the rules of what it looks like. It isn't a forum for public discourse. Any offer they might float to make some extra money or fundraise (I have one) is just that -- an offer. It isn't a medium for "speech". All of which means the state gets to dictate what the offer is, and what it isn't.

If that were not the case, you could order a plate that says "FUCK YOU". But you can't.

That's bullshit and you know it. What will the "State" do when a gay guy wants to put "I'm queer" on a plate? Sound familiar? It's the damned cake thing all over again. If you are going to force bakers to cater to gays then so must the state.

If you are not going to allow free speech on license plates - then stop selling them to the public.

License plates are owned by the state. That's a fact. Therefore the state makes the rules. It's to regulate car registration -- not to make personal statements. And again, there's nothing stopping that car owner from festooning his bumper, his fenders, his front license plate holder, with whatever the fuck he wants. That's his land so he makes the rules there.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Florida currently cannot do so without being taken to court though.

What gives you that idea?

Because the issue hasn't been settled in the SCOTUS. So if SCOTUS sides with Texas, Florida won't have to worry about a thing. They wont have to accept anything they consider too offensive.

Again I ask -- why would SCOTUS be trifling with crap like this?
It ain't rocket surgery -- the license plate belongs to the state, not the car owner. What happens if you sell your car? You have to return the plate to the state. Therefore they make the rules of what it looks like. It isn't a forum for public discourse. Any offer they might float to make some extra money or fundraise (I have one) is just that -- an offer. It isn't a medium for "speech". All of which means the state gets to dictate what the offer is, and what it isn't.

If that were not the case, you could order a plate that says "FUCK YOU". But you can't.

That's bullshit and you know it. What will the "State" do when a gay guy wants to put "I'm queer" on a plate? Sound familiar? It's the damned cake thing all over again. If you are going to force bakers to cater to gays then so must the state.

If you are not going to allow free speech on license plates - then stop selling them to the public.

License plates are owned by the state. That's a fact. Therefore the state makes the rules. It's to regulate car registration -- not to make personal statements. And again, there's nothing stopping that car owner from festooning his bumper, his fenders, his front license plate holder, with whatever the fuck he wants. That's his land so he makes the rules there.

Oh, I see. so the cake that the baker makes doesn't belong to him....Okay, I get it So, since only the STATE is allowed to make rules for THEIR products - I get it now. State=good Baker=Bad. Gotcha.

One thing you can always count on from those on the left - the double standard will ALWAYS reign supreme. STATE is good!!! Private enterprise is BAD!!!


Now explain to me the difference between the (obviously) vulgar FUCK U and a license plate that says "Sons of the Confederacy Veterans"

Please explain the difference.....

 

[Pogo]

What gives you that idea?

Because the issue hasn't been settled in the SCOTUS. So if SCOTUS sides with Texas, Florida won't have to worry about a thing. They wont have to accept anything they consider too offensive.

Again I ask -- why would SCOTUS be trifling with crap like this?
It ain't rocket surgery -- the license plate belongs to the state, not the car owner. What happens if you sell your car? You have to return the plate to the state. Therefore they make the rules of what it looks like. It isn't a forum for public discourse. Any offer they might float to make some extra money or fundraise (I have one) is just that -- an offer. It isn't a medium for "speech". All of which means the state gets to dictate what the offer is, and what it isn't.

If that were not the case, you could order a plate that says "FUCK YOU". But you can't.

That's bullshit and you know it. What will the "State" do when a gay guy wants to put "I'm queer" on a plate? Sound familiar? It's the damned cake thing all over again. If you are going to force bakers to cater to gays then so must the state.

If you are not going to allow free speech on license plates - then stop selling them to the public.

License plates are owned by the state. That's a fact. Therefore the state makes the rules. It's to regulate car registration -- not to make personal statements. And again, there's nothing stopping that car owner from festooning his bumper, his fenders, his front license plate holder, with whatever the fuck he wants. That's his land so he makes the rules there.

Oh, I see. so the cake that the baker makes doesn't belong to him....Okay, I get it So, since only the STATE is allowed to make rules for THEIR products - I get it now. State=good Baker=Bad. Gotcha.

One thing you can always count on from those on the left - the double standard will ALWAYS reign supreme. STATE is good!!! Private enterprise is BAD!!!


Now explain to me the difference between the (obviously) vulgar FUCK U and a license plate that says "Sons of the Confederacy Veterans"

Please explain the difference.....

Where the fuck are we getting "bakers"? I didn't bring up bakers or cakes, nor did I imply anything about private enterprise versus The State. I made no reference to The State at all.

What I said was "state" --- lower case S. As in "the state of Texas". Dumbass. And it's a fact, the state (Texas in this case) makes the license plate and requires it on the car. It's not a speech forum; it's a regulation device.

Refute that.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Because the issue hasn't been settled in the SCOTUS. So if SCOTUS sides with Texas, Florida won't have to worry about a thing. They wont have to accept anything they consider too offensive.

Again I ask -- why would SCOTUS be trifling with crap like this?
It ain't rocket surgery -- the license plate belongs to the state, not the car owner. What happens if you sell your car? You have to return the plate to the state. Therefore they make the rules of what it looks like. It isn't a forum for public discourse. Any offer they might float to make some extra money or fundraise (I have one) is just that -- an offer. It isn't a medium for "speech". All of which means the state gets to dictate what the offer is, and what it isn't.

If that were not the case, you could order a plate that says "FUCK YOU". But you can't.

That's bullshit and you know it. What will the "State" do when a gay guy wants to put "I'm queer" on a plate? Sound familiar? It's the damned cake thing all over again. If you are going to force bakers to cater to gays then so must the state.

If you are not going to allow free speech on license plates - then stop selling them to the public.

License plates are owned by the state. That's a fact. Therefore the state makes the rules. It's to regulate car registration -- not to make personal statements. And again, there's nothing stopping that car owner from festooning his bumper, his fenders, his front license plate holder, with whatever the fuck he wants. That's his land so he makes the rules there.

Oh, I see. so the cake that the baker makes doesn't belong to him....Okay, I get it So, since only the STATE is allowed to make rules for THEIR products - I get it now. State=good Baker=Bad. Gotcha.

One thing you can always count on from those on the left - the double standard will ALWAYS reign supreme. STATE is good!!! Private enterprise is BAD!!!


Now explain to me the difference between the (obviously) vulgar FUCK U and a license plate that says "Sons of the Confederacy Veterans"

Please explain the difference.....

Where are we getting "bakers"? I didn't bring up bakers. Nor did I imply anything about private enterprise versus The State.

What I said was "state" --- lower case S. As in "the state of Texas". Dumass. And it's a fact, the state (Texas in this case) makes the license plate and requires it on the car. It's not a speech forum; it's a regulation device.

Refute that.

Easy. If the state requires a license plate - then sells vanity plates that offer nearly everything under the sun - where is the "vulgarity" in a plate that says "Son of a Confederacy Veteran"? Because it offends some liberal clown? Tough shit.

The state of Texas does NOT require vanity plates. It requires registration plates and nothing more. It's the same crap as when a state declares you can not put "respect life" on a license plate. It's censorship plain and simple.

It's no different from the hell raised over the baker who refuses to put gay crap on a wedding cake. He CAN'T get away with it - but you claim the state can. Again, in your warped little head - the state dictates and the rest of us merely comply.

 

[Pogo]

Again I ask -- why would SCOTUS be trifling with crap like this?
It ain't rocket surgery -- the license plate belongs to the state, not the car owner. What happens if you sell your car? You have to return the plate to the state. Therefore they make the rules of what it looks like. It isn't a forum for public discourse. Any offer they might float to make some extra money or fundraise (I have one) is just that -- an offer. It isn't a medium for "speech". All of which means the state gets to dictate what the offer is, and what it isn't.

If that were not the case, you could order a plate that says "FUCK YOU". But you can't.

That's bullshit and you know it. What will the "State" do when a gay guy wants to put "I'm queer" on a plate? Sound familiar? It's the damned cake thing all over again. If you are going to force bakers to cater to gays then so must the state.

If you are not going to allow free speech on license plates - then stop selling them to the public.

License plates are owned by the state. That's a fact. Therefore the state makes the rules. It's to regulate car registration -- not to make personal statements. And again, there's nothing stopping that car owner from festooning his bumper, his fenders, his front license plate holder, with whatever the fuck he wants. That's his land so he makes the rules there.

Oh, I see. so the cake that the baker makes doesn't belong to him....Okay, I get it So, since only the STATE is allowed to make rules for THEIR products - I get it now. State=good Baker=Bad. Gotcha.

One thing you can always count on from those on the left - the double standard will ALWAYS reign supreme. STATE is good!!! Private enterprise is BAD!!!


Now explain to me the difference between the (obviously) vulgar FUCK U and a license plate that says "Sons of the Confederacy Veterans"

Please explain the difference.....

Where are we getting "bakers"? I didn't bring up bakers. Nor did I imply anything about private enterprise versus The State.

What I said was "state" --- lower case S. As in "the state of Texas". Dumass. And it's a fact, the state (Texas in this case) makes the license plate and requires it on the car. It's not a speech forum; it's a regulation device.

Refute that.

Easy. If the state requires a license plate - then sells vanity plates that offer nearly everything under the sun - where is the "vulgarity" in a plate that says "Son of a Confederacy Veteran"? Because it offends some liberal clown? Tough shit.

I didn't say anything about "vulgarity" either. I simply (perhaps too simply) said it's up to the state to decide what it will accept on its own plates.

The state of Texas does NOT require vanity plates. It requires registration plates and nothing more. It's the same crap as when a state declares you can not put "respect life" on a license plate. It's censorship plain and simple.

Didn't say that either. Nobody's required to get a vanity plate. But if you do, it's an offer by the state, for a fee. And no, that's not censorship -- it's not stifling anybody's voice.

Where's the "censorship" here?

​

I don't know where you're getting this "can't put respect life on a license plate" but...

It's no different from the hell raised over the baker who refuses to put gay crap on a wedding cake. He CAN'T get away with it - but you claim the state can. Again, in your warped little head - the state dictates and the rest of us merely comply.

I'm not familiar with that but a baker would be a private enterprise selling wares. No one is required to buy a cake to register their car.

 

[RandallFlagg]

That's bullshit and you know it. What will the "State" do when a gay guy wants to put "I'm queer" on a plate? Sound familiar? It's the damned cake thing all over again. If you are going to force bakers to cater to gays then so must the state.

If you are not going to allow free speech on license plates - then stop selling them to the public.

License plates are owned by the state. That's a fact. Therefore the state makes the rules. It's to regulate car registration -- not to make personal statements. And again, there's nothing stopping that car owner from festooning his bumper, his fenders, his front license plate holder, with whatever the fuck he wants. That's his land so he makes the rules there.

Oh, I see. so the cake that the baker makes doesn't belong to him....Okay, I get it So, since only the STATE is allowed to make rules for THEIR products - I get it now. State=good Baker=Bad. Gotcha.

One thing you can always count on from those on the left - the double standard will ALWAYS reign supreme. STATE is good!!! Private enterprise is BAD!!!


Now explain to me the difference between the (obviously) vulgar FUCK U and a license plate that says "Sons of the Confederacy Veterans"

Please explain the difference.....

Where are we getting "bakers"? I didn't bring up bakers. Nor did I imply anything about private enterprise versus The State.

What I said was "state" --- lower case S. As in "the state of Texas". Dumass. And it's a fact, the state (Texas in this case) makes the license plate and requires it on the car. It's not a speech forum; it's a regulation device.

Refute that.

Easy. If the state requires a license plate - then sells vanity plates that offer nearly everything under the sun - where is the "vulgarity" in a plate that says "Son of a Confederacy Veteran"? Because it offends some liberal clown? Tough shit.

I didn't say anything about "vulgarity" either. I simply (perhaps too simply) said it's up to the state to decide what it will accept on its own plates.

The state of Texas does NOT require vanity plates. It requires registration plates and nothing more. It's the same crap as when a state declares you can not put "respect life" on a license plate. It's censorship plain and simple.

Didn't say that either. Nobody's required to get a vanity plate. But if you do, it's an offer by the state, for a fee. And no, that's not censorship -- it's not stifling anybody's voice.

Where's the "censorship" here?

​

I don't know where you're getting this "can't put respect life on a license plate" but...

It's no different from the hell raised over the baker who refuses to put gay crap on a wedding cake. He CAN'T get away with it - but you claim the state can. Again, in your warped little head - the state dictates and the rest of us merely comply.

I'm not familiar with that but a baker would be a private enterprise selling wares. No one is required to buy a cake to register their car.

I'll ask you one more time. Where is the justification for the state of texas to tell anyone that a plate that says :Son of a Confederacy Veteran - is not appropriate?

Your answer is bullshit. "Because they make the rules". That's no answer clown. The ONLY justification for NOT allowing a certain plate is if it contains a vulgarity. Where is the vulgarity?

 

[Pogo]

License plates are owned by the state. That's a fact. Therefore the state makes the rules. It's to regulate car registration -- not to make personal statements. And again, there's nothing stopping that car owner from festooning his bumper, his fenders, his front license plate holder, with whatever the fuck he wants. That's his land so he makes the rules there.

Oh, I see. so the cake that the baker makes doesn't belong to him....Okay, I get it So, since only the STATE is allowed to make rules for THEIR products - I get it now. State=good Baker=Bad. Gotcha.

One thing you can always count on from those on the left - the double standard will ALWAYS reign supreme. STATE is good!!! Private enterprise is BAD!!!


Now explain to me the difference between the (obviously) vulgar FUCK U and a license plate that says "Sons of the Confederacy Veterans"

Please explain the difference.....

Where are we getting "bakers"? I didn't bring up bakers. Nor did I imply anything about private enterprise versus The State.

What I said was "state" --- lower case S. As in "the state of Texas". Dumass. And it's a fact, the state (Texas in this case) makes the license plate and requires it on the car. It's not a speech forum; it's a regulation device.

Refute that.

Easy. If the state requires a license plate - then sells vanity plates that offer nearly everything under the sun - where is the "vulgarity" in a plate that says "Son of a Confederacy Veteran"? Because it offends some liberal clown? Tough shit.

I didn't say anything about "vulgarity" either. I simply (perhaps too simply) said it's up to the state to decide what it will accept on its own plates.

The state of Texas does NOT require vanity plates. It requires registration plates and nothing more. It's the same crap as when a state declares you can not put "respect life" on a license plate. It's censorship plain and simple.

Didn't say that either. Nobody's required to get a vanity plate. But if you do, it's an offer by the state, for a fee. And no, that's not censorship -- it's not stifling anybody's voice.

Where's the "censorship" here?

​

I don't know where you're getting this "can't put respect life on a license plate" but...

It's no different from the hell raised over the baker who refuses to put gay crap on a wedding cake. He CAN'T get away with it - but you claim the state can. Again, in your warped little head - the state dictates and the rest of us merely comply.

I'm not familiar with that but a baker would be a private enterprise selling wares. No one is required to buy a cake to register their car.

I'll ask you one more time. Where is the justification for the state of texas to tell anyone that a plate that says :Son of a Confederacy Veteran - is not appropriate?

Your answer is bullshit. "Because they make the rules". That's no answer clown. The ONLY justification for NOT allowing a certain plate is if it contains a vulgarity. Where is the vulgarity?

I'm not here to feed your strawman. "Vulgarity" is your speculation -- not mine.

 

[A Perez]

I'm not familiar with that but our answer is bullshit. "Because they make the rules". That's no answer clown. The ONLY justification for NOT allowing a certain plate is if it contains a vulgarity. Where is the vulgarity?

Suppose a group wanted the message "kill all cops" or "(N word) must be decapitated)" in a license plate. Those statements are not vulgar. Do you mean the state should be forced to accept those statements?

 

[Synthaholic]

Florida can do that already. As can any state.
What makes you think SCOTUS would trifle with this sort of triviality?

Florida currently cannot do so without being taken to court though.

What gives you that idea?

Because the issue hasn't been settled in the SCOTUS. So if SCOTUS sides with Texas, Florida won't have to worry about a thing. They wont have to accept anything they consider too offensive.

Again I ask -- why would SCOTUS be trifling with crap like this?
It ain't rocket surgery -- the license plate belongs to the state, not the car owner. What happens if you sell your car? You have to return the plate to the state. Therefore they make the rules of what it looks like. It isn't a forum for public discourse. Any offer they might float to make some extra money or fundraise (I have one) is just that -- an offer. It isn't a medium for "speech". All of which means the state gets to dictate what the offer is, and what it isn't.

If that were not the case, you could order a plate that says "FUCK YOU". But you can't.

That's bullshit and you know it. What will the "State" do when a gay guy wants to put "I'm queer" on a plate? Sound familiar? It's the damned cake thing all over again. If you are going to force bakers to cater to gays then so must the state.

If you are not going to allow free speech on license plates - then stop selling them to the public.

All states have a similar regulation:

(2) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that no license plate be manufactured and issued which contains objectionable language or symbols which are considered by the Department of Revenue to be offensive to the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.​

 

[Synthaholic]

Easy. If the state requires a license plate - then sells vanity plates that offer nearly everything under the sun - where is the "vulgarity" in a plate that says "Son of a Confederacy Veteran"? Because it offends some liberal clown? Tough shit.

Also in every state:

(d) The committee shall not consider for approval applications from the following types of organizations:

(1) Out-of-state colleges and universities.
(2) Private businesses, business organizations, or commercial entities of any type.
(3) Public and private schools K-12, junior colleges, and technical schools, exclusive of
the Helping Schools Tag as established in Sections 32-6-300 and 32-6-301.
(4) Groups within high schools, junior colleges, universities, and technical schools, such as band boosters, athletic boosters, and the like.
(5) Unions.
(6) Political organizations.
(7) Religious organizations.
(8)Groups that promote racial or social disharmony.
(9) Public officials.
​

 

[Missourian]

Easy. If the state requires a license plate - then sells vanity plates that offer nearly everything under the sun - where is the "vulgarity" in a plate that says "Son of a Confederacy Veteran"? Because it offends some liberal clown? Tough shit.

Also in every state:

(d) The committee shall not consider for approval applications from the following types of organizations:

(1) Out-of-state colleges and universities.
(2) Private businesses, business organizations, or commercial entities of any type.
(3) Public and private schools K-12, junior colleges, and technical schools, exclusive of
the Helping Schools Tag as established in Sections 32-6-300 and 32-6-301.
(4) Groups within high schools, junior colleges, universities, and technical schools, such as band boosters, athletic boosters, and the like.
(5) Unions.
(6) Political organizations.
(7) Religious organizations.
(8)Groups that promote racial or social disharmony.
(9) Public officials.
​

Sons of Confederate Veterans fits none of those categories.

Sons of Confederate Veterans

 

[Synthaholic]

Easy. If the state requires a license plate - then sells vanity plates that offer nearly everything under the sun - where is the "vulgarity" in a plate that says "Son of a Confederacy Veteran"? Because it offends some liberal clown? Tough shit.

Also in every state:

(d) The committee shall not consider for approval applications from the following types of organizations:

(1) Out-of-state colleges and universities.
(2) Private businesses, business organizations, or commercial entities of any type.
(3) Public and private schools K-12, junior colleges, and technical schools, exclusive of
the Helping Schools Tag as established in Sections 32-6-300 and 32-6-301.
(4) Groups within high schools, junior colleges, universities, and technical schools, such as band boosters, athletic boosters, and the like.
(5) Unions.
(6) Political organizations.
(7) Religious organizations.
(8)Groups that promote racial or social disharmony.
(9) Public officials.
​

Sons of Confederate Veterans fits none of those categories.

Sons of Confederate Veterans

I disagree. They are political in their mission, and they certainly promote social disharmony.

Now, let me add, these same restrictions will be used against any homosexual activist groups, also, for the same reasons.

 

[Missourian]

Easy. If the state requires a license plate - then sells vanity plates that offer nearly everything under the sun - where is the "vulgarity" in a plate that says "Son of a Confederacy Veteran"? Because it offends some liberal clown? Tough shit.

Also in every state:

(d) The committee shall not consider for approval applications from the following types of organizations:

(1) Out-of-state colleges and universities.
(2) Private businesses, business organizations, or commercial entities of any type.
(3) Public and private schools K-12, junior colleges, and technical schools, exclusive of
the Helping Schools Tag as established in Sections 32-6-300 and 32-6-301.
(4) Groups within high schools, junior colleges, universities, and technical schools, such as band boosters, athletic boosters, and the like.
(5) Unions.
(6) Political organizations.
(7) Religious organizations.
(8)Groups that promote racial or social disharmony.
(9) Public officials.
​

Sons of Confederate Veterans fits none of those categories.

Sons of Confederate Veterans

I disagree. They are political in their mission, and they certainly promote social disharmony.

Now, let me add, these same restrictions will be used against any homosexual activist groups, also, for the same reasons.

They are more or less a historical society.

Straight from their website..."The SCV is the direct heir of the United Confederate Veterans, and the oldest hereditary organization for male descendants of Confederate soldiers. Organized at Richmond, Virginia in 1896, the SCV continues to serve as a historical, patriotic, and non-political organization dedicated to ensuring that a true history of the 1861-1865 period is preserved."

P.S.-

 

[Agit8r]

As you may have heard, a group called the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) wants to take advantage of a Texas program that allows private citizens to put their own message in their license plates. SCV's message would include a symbol of the Confederate flag.

There is debate as to whether this is public speech or private speech, or both.
I think this is a tricky case. What do you people think the Constitution calls for in this case? How do you think the judges will vote? This should be decided in the next couple of months.

It is no different than having license plates for ISIS. Both represent enmity toward the American people, and modern humanity. There should not be government sanction for such crap.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Should the Sons of Confederates Veterans get their license plates?"

Of course they should.

First Amendment jurisprudence clearly protects the right of citizens to exhibit their ignorance and hate. The state has no grounds whatsoever to refuse the request, that the message is hateful and offensive is not justification to seek to preempt the message.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As you may have heard, a group called the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) wants to take advantage of a Texas program that allows private citizens to put their own message in their license plates. SCV's message would include a symbol of the Confederate flag.

There is debate as to whether this is public speech or private speech, or both.
I think this is a tricky case. What do you people think the Constitution calls for in this case? How do you think the judges will vote? This should be decided in the next couple of months.

It is no different than having license plates for ISIS. Both represent enmity toward the American people, and modern humanity. There should not be government sanction for such crap.

Disagree.

Such a prohibition would not be content neutral, nor an incidental restriction on speech, and consequently un-Constitutional.

 

[JQPublic1]

As you may have heard, a group called the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) wants to take advantage of a Texas program that allows private citizens to put their own message in their license plates. SCV's message would include a symbol of the Confederate flag.

There is debate as to whether this is public speech or private speech, or both.
I think this is a tricky case. What do you people think the Constitution calls for in this case? How do you think the judges will vote? This should be decided in the next couple of months.

Does that include Blacks with confederate great grandfathers or were the descendants of Blacks who fought in the Confederacy?

 

[JQPublic1]

"Should the Sons of Confederates Veterans get their license plates?"

Of course they should.

First Amendment jurisprudence clearly protects the right of citizens to exhibit their ignorance and hate. The state has no grounds whatsoever to refuse the request, that the message is hateful and offensive is not justification to seek to preempt the message.

Good! Then there should be no objection to someone wanting to put porn on a license plate...The confed plates are just as offensive!

 

[Missourian]

 

[Missourian]

Does that include Blacks with confederate great grandfathers or were the descendants of Blacks who fought in the Confederacy?

Funny you should mention that...

In 1991, after the NAACP began a campaign against the Confederate flag being celebrated on public buildings, Winbush disagreed and decided to join the Sons of Confederate Veterans. He is a member of the SCV's Jacob Summerlin Camp #1516 in Kissimmee, Florida.[5] As an adult he had learned more about his grandfather and his military service, and Winbush came to honor his support for the Confederacy.

With his retirement from teaching, Winbush felt ready to speak out on public issues. For instance, unlike many other African Americans, he considers the Confederate flag part of Southern heritage and appropriate for public display. He has said that the South seceded from the Union because of states' rights, not slavery. "He denies that President Lincoln freed the slaves, explaining that the Emancipation Proclamation affected only the Confederate states, which were no longer under his authority."[1]

Nelson W. Winbush - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Image courtesy of Wikipedia​