Re: Love America? Then celebrate Lincoln
 
From: wildbill4dixie@yahoo.com
To: roscym@adelphia.net 
 
Re: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/022010/02122010/526870 
 
Mr. Roser, 
 
I read with great interest, your recent letter to the editor at Fredericksburg.com. 
 
“Slavocracy?” “Beacon to the world?” “Lights out?” It sounds like you’re writing a new verse to “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Send it to me when you’re finished. I’m always up for a good laugh. 
 
And the next time you decide to make up a list of patriotic catch-phrases, you also might want to include “Consent of the Governed” among them, and then reflect on exactly what that means. Its meaning escaped your distant ancestors. Perhaps there’s some hope for you? 
 
As a “Neo-Confederate,” (note, I did not use the word “apologist” because, in fact, I apologize for nothing), the first thing that catches my attention is your order to “celebrate Lincoln” if you “love America.” Yankees were historically very good at giving orders and you apparently are carrying on that tradition with great gusto. 
 
I also take note of your statement regarding permanency of the Union – “But it is implied.” Where is it implied? Having read some of the history of the Constitutional Convention, as well as some  of the Federalist Papers, I came away with the distinct impression that had someone at that Convention proposed that once in the Union you could never leave, or, once in the Union you would need someone else’s permission to leave, the entire convention of delegates would have gotten up and gone home. There is much in the first 40 years of the Republic which indicates that secession, while not a desirable option, was indeed available to any state that thought it would be in its best interest; i.e., Massachusetts’ threat to secede in 1803 and the New England States at the Hartford Convention, just to name 2 incidents. Sorry, but I see nothing “implied” in regard to perpetuity of the Union. What I do see is the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states, all rights not specifically surrendered by them, and all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal government. 
 
You also seem to have a problem with Dr. De Lorenzo making allegations about Lincoln’s patently unconstitutional behavior. If you reject these contentions because they come from De Lorenzo, maybe you’d be happier with the same allegations, leveled by the Cherokee People in October 1861? 
 
 “….But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded….” http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/cherokee.html 
 
Sounds a lot like what Dr. De Lorenzo is saying to me. 
 
I should, in any case, thank you for writing the letter, and thank the editor at Fredericsburg.com for publishing it. Your typical Yankee rant will remind those whose ancestors fought to repel Mr. Lincoln’s invasion why it was that they fought and instill in them the belief that the sacrifice of their ancestors was well worth it. 
 
I thank you, the Sons of Confederate Veterans thanks you, and Neo-Confederates everywhere thank you for your brilliant, and very public display of Yankee hubris. 
 
Best Regards and “Sic Sempre Tyrannus”
 
Bill Vallante
Commack NY
Sons of Confederate Veterans, Associate Member, Camp 3000 Edmund Ruffin FIREATERS
Sons of Confederate Veterans, Associate Member, Camp 1506, Jeb Stuart Camp