Whether it’s a Believer who shares the gospel on a busy sidewalk, or a protestor standing along the highway holding up signs or flags in 100 degree weather – one things is certain. These people aren’t merely content to sit at home on the couch, watching television and eating ice cream. Rather, they’ve come to a point in their lives where they believe they can be silent no longer, and must speak out in defense of that which they hold dear. Karen is one such person.
Missouri Tenth had the opportunity to conduct an interview with this inspiring lady, and find out a little bit about her efforts in educating and encouraging those around her with the truth. While it’s not an easy task, and often requires sacrifice, folks like Karen understand that it’s ultimately not about us – but about the future we’ll be passing on to our children.
Karen was born in Georgia, lived out her youth in NYC, and has now been in Virginia for about 17 years. She says that her views and feelings about America and the South have changed since she has matured. “I was of course much more liberal in my younger days, but since I am a mother I have grown up a lot.” Karen states. “I have to be responsible for my children, and I feel it’s my duty to try to teach my children about individualism, and what our wonderful country was founded on.”
A working single mother who spends much of her time Flagging and going to Confederate Events, Karen points out that, “ I don’t want to be used or treated as special because of my skin color, but I know I do. I don’t take offense or feel like a token, because I like what I do. I have never felt unwelcome at any event I have been to. If I was ever treated badly I wouldn’t be there. I just do this because I understand the principles of why the South seceded – and if it was me in these Southerner’s shoes at the time, I would have done the same.”
Missouri Tenth: So how did you get involved in promoting liberty in your community?
Karen: It started after I voted for Obama, I didn’t like what he did right from day one. So I joined the Tea Party, and when they were talking about States Rights – I said, “Wow! That is what the South was saying!” So I started researching the reasons for the War for Southern Independence (so-called Civil War). I then realized that the South was right.
I try to support the Southern way of life now by flagging and supporting Southern events, and I give to Southern causes. My family is liberal and we do not communicate much at all.
Missouri Tenth: What are your views on State Sovereignty, Southern Nationhood and the Federal Government?
Karen: I am a firm believer in States Rights. If I don’t like what is happening in my state, I must work to change it, or I vote with my feet by moving. This is what our Founders wanted us to do to keep our State Sovereignty.
Southern Nationhood is another thing I believe in, and I don’t want it to be lost. I love the Southern way of living and the hospitality that is here. What I love about the Southern way of living is that we don’t care what you do up North, but you will not change how we do things down here. Things like God, family, our Statehood and capitalism.
Missouri Tenth: Do you think the Federal Government’s intervention into people’s lives has been a good thing?
No I do not. Government has been the problem. People will grow and work things out all on their own in time. Why people think that the Government is righteous or moral is beyond me. The Government is neither. They are a necessary evil in my opinion, and should be kept small with very limited Federal and State powers.
Missouri Tenth: What would be your hope for the people of the South today, and in the near future? What would you recommend for these groups to do in order to live peacefully, in Christian charity with each other?
I must be honest. I don’t have much hope for the American people today – and that includes Southerner’s because of how reconstructed they have become. In order for Southerner’s to live peacefully together, they must understand the principles that the South fought for. Things like States Rights, Capitalism, Christianity and simply the Southern way of living. But if the people don’t understand that, we will never be able to live in peace.
Thank you Karen for all your hard work for liberty in our communities, and for allowing Missouri Tenth to spend a little time talking with you!
If you’d like to learn more about Karen’s efforts, please see her facebook page at: https://www.facebook.com/dvcdmom3
Wow oh wow!
Karen you also speak for me too! I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said or what you believe. Your battle is my battle, my battle is for you and anyone who believes as you. Just reading your testimony makes me feel what I do is not in vain, that I have a higher purpose in life. Hopefully one day we shall meet and I’ll definitely be saving a great big hug for you….
Thank you from my heart,
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
She obviously did a bad job researching the causes of the War of the Rebellion if she came to the conclusion that the south was right. I wonder if Miss Karen has ever read the secession commissioners speeches…you know where they talk about keeping people that looked like her enslaved.
Corey: I’d encourage you to do a little more research too – as well as consider how everyone in the United States has now been enslaved by the Federal Government. All because of the precedent set in motion by Lincoln’s radical administration. Take a look at some of our resources under the Resource Downloads tab – Missouri Martial Law, 1787 Constitutional Debates: Federal vs. Anti-Federal, and American Slavery: 150 years of Constitutional Rejection.
Have you read the Secession Commissioners?
“What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery.”
Henry Benning to the Va. Convention.
http://civilwarcauses.org/commish.htm
@Corey Meyer
Really; is that the best you can do? Playing the same ole tune over and over just don’t work any more. Have you ever heard of the Corwin Amendment?
Read a little and exorcize your brain…
“In an unusual move, Democratic President James Buchanan signed the Corwin Amendment on March 3, 1861, his last day in office (the Constitution does not require presidential approval for proposed amendments). It was ratified by only two states—Ohio on May 13, 1861, and by Maryland on January 10, 1862—and therefore fell far short of the necessary three-quarters majority of states in order to become part of the U.S. Constitution. Had it achieved ratification, the Corwin Amendment, which protected slavery, would have become the Thirteenth Amendment”. (In 1861 there were 34 States so it would have only taken 26 states to secure the amendment, now consider the Northern Slave trade, New York large slave population and how blacks were viewed; it is clear they could have secured the right to have had slaves). Ohio signed on as soon as the Amendment cleared the president.
If the war had been over slavery the South could have at any time rejoined the Union passing the amendment securing her slaves, and even though Lincoln repeatedly made that offer (The last time on February 1865 on the ‘River Queen’ outside Fort Monroe, when both Seward and Lincoln again made the offer return pass the amendment and keep your slaves) they refused”. Why would the South still refuse such a good offer? Or was it not so good?
The short of the Corwin Amendment is this. In essence the Federal Government was telling the Southern States they could keep their slaves and the North would sign the binding agreement, the Corwin Amendment, that slavery would forever be an institution in the US. In return the Southern States had to agree to pay tariff and tax rates that amounted to app. 96% of the Federal Government’s tax revenues. Looks to me that it was the North that wanted to profit off slavery, and at NO expense to them!
Or better yet; How about this? Why did the states of North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas secede from the union? Was it over slavery? Was it over tariffs and taxes? No to both counts although they were considered. North Carolina did NOT secede until Lincoln gave the State of NC an order to send troops to attack South Carolina. NC refused and Lincoln automatically claimed NC to be in violation of the US Constitution and he deemed NC as a secessionist State. This angered North Carolinians so much so they then passed the bill to secede from the union. NC had voted shortly after SC seceded on the measure but it failed originally. Also note, Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee seceded for the same reasons as North Carolina. They would not send their people to attack South Carolina. And 2 of those states had previously voted to remain in the union. Arkansas simply seceded when it was ordered to furnish troops for Lincoln to attack South Carolina. But there is still more!
It was unconstitutional for Lincoln to wage war against other states. Buchanan had said the same thing, also saying his hands were tied in the matter.
Have you read the US Constitution? Enough to know what it really says? Specifically Article 3 Section 3:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
Here ole dishonest Abe actually committed treason against the US and all the states, NOT just against the Southern States.
Is that enough to start? I can give more! Much more! I’m just getting started!
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
Pingback: Karen Cooper Speaks Out « Crossroads
btw Karen, Everyone
Here is a copy of what I posted on your link yesterday Karen. Maybe others here can read it also..
I wrote you a post earlier but I don’t see it up on the wall now. I may try and repost it to you tomorrow. I was just checking before bedtime and thought I would also add this link to something that is historically related to your
article and my comment below the article. Hope ya’ll like it…
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/boston/12008150998355/quincy-woman-vandalizes-civil-war-memorial/
Thanks again Karen,
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
Karen, it seems you have been targeted by the “wanna be” historian Brooks Simpson.
He’s created another strawman argument, this time especially for you!
Poor ole Brooks Simpson, I’ve done cremated him twice, and to the point he thinks I’m some great Southern politically incorrect bigoted, racist historian. He will no longer even address me personally, and I have been 100% gentlemanly and civil towards him! He runs from me like the scared dawg he is; and why not? He makes much money and acquires much publicity and fame creating strawmen and attacking anyone he disagrees with without so much as letting them defend themselves. But I still get great satisfaction in knowing I have his number and eventually he’ll have no place to hide from me! btw-I’ve even kept all our past posts, between Simpson and myself proving his cremation… In the end he’ll lose, but in the meantime I’m afraid we’ve still got such egotisitical and prejudiced people to deal with.
If need be I’ll defend you right here and take on the yank and cremate him once again, for I can tear what little he wrote against you completely apart, as he has NO basis for his final assertions.
Anyhow Karen, go here and read where you’ve made it to Brooks Simpson’s Wall of Shame….
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/karen-cooper-speaks-out/
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
I’d like for those that feel that my friend Karen is “wrong” about her reasonings of “right and wrong” to please research “true history” and not the Marxist indoctrination found in our public schools for the past 80 years….
I research history and have for many years now and I hunt for books written before our history was slowly being rewritten. Here is one such book written by Charles Morris in 1907. Mr. Morris was commissioned by an act of Congress to write history books for the Library of Congress and also for the schools. This link will take you to the library site for the U. of Michigan where many other copies of Mr. Morris’ books can be found also.
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t7cr6n06r
@Corey Meyer
btw- Bring on your phds in history. I’ll cremate them as I have done Brooks Simpson twice, James Loewen and John David Smith, professor of American history at UNC Charlotte. I read your little blog! You have NOTHING, and I DO NOT LOSE! I can’t lose! I am now what you made me, hell on earth! Your very worst nightmare come true!
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
LOL…sorry to have bothered you…I thought I was dealing with a rational person. Have a great day! I win!
@Corey Meyer
Sure man, sure…
Rot on…
Seems I have no response to my assertions and questions, so I’ll answer them myself. The states of NC, VA, AK and TN seceded from the union, with three of those states having a second referendum on the matter because, they knew it was unconstitutional according to Article 3 Section 3. Plus the states of NC and VA was being required by Lincoln to allow Federal troops march across their lands and requisitioning supplies along the way. This so infuriated those states they had their referendums, with 3 states it being their second vote on the matter. This time all the mentioned states voted to secede.
Here is an article of a recent date that appeared in the New York Times concerning the matter.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/the-death-knell-of-slavery/
The above being true means Lincoln committed TREASON and violated his oath of office. However this was ONLY the first of many instances where Lincoln committed treason, and he even refers ambiguously in his speech to congress when they convened in July 1861.
So my assertions went over so well yesterday that I had to answer them myself, I’ll give you a second chance. Lincoln is quoted as saying, “In saving the union I have destroyed the Republic.” Does anyone know and understand what this actually means, the full depth of the problems this has caused, being true?
In destroying the Republic Lincoln created what is today the modern USA which is actually a Federal Democratic Union, and NOT what it was originally designed as being, a Limited Democratic Republic.. Over the years, because of this, the country evolved from a Capitalist economic society into what is known as “State Capitalism”. This is close to what we understand as being a form of fascism. (Google “State Capitalism” also for a better understanding.)
Does anyone know what the term “Republican” stands for?
It stands for “Rule of Law”. Meaning no one is above the law, even presidents. Everything, every disagreement and every law contemplated MUST undergo the process of the Rule of Law before a law can be passed, judgement rendered or disagreement resolved. In ANY event where this does not happen the Rule of Law has been avoided, and in this country today Rule of Law is merely stated as a charade, paying lip service to what the powers that be want accomplished. To them the Rule of Law means NOTHING, just as it did to Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln knew he had destroyed the Republic and had committed unconstitutional acts in the process, setting precedents that are with us and have been magnified to the point I can cite these quotes from Jefferson Davis:
“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert it’s self, though it may be at another time and in another form.”– President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A.
and
”…the contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena.” — President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A., address to the Mississippi legislature in 1881.
I ask this final question; What’s the most important concerning a country, following the Rule of Law, or saving a union?
Michael- Deo Vindicabamur
You hate Lincoln because he was a self-educated poor man and we live in a society run by un-educated rich men who delight in the fact that PhDs can’t get jobs because un-educated rich men are what we called “pigs” in the 1960s…and we were right.
Lincoln was the President intended by the Founding Fathers who knew that they intended, OF COURSE, the Union to be preserved: if the whole purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to secure the blessings of liberty of the PEOPLE of the United States, then secession would endanger that liberty, because the elites of the seceding states (notably the vile slave-drivers of the West Indies who dominated South Carolina then and dominate that hell hole now) could destroy the liberty of the common man in the seceding state. Therefore, in the words of Daniel Webster, liberty and union are one.
“Republican” does not stand for “rule of law”. It derives from the Latin, Res Publica (thing of the public). The origin was the overthrow of monarchy in ancient Rome and the associated rule of the Patricians (the oldest and wealthiest families of Rome) and its replacement by the “thing” of the Publicans who were the general public, newer families and newer wealth, in relation to the Patricians.
Shakespeare and Plutarch treat of this time in Coriolanus.
And, of course, saving the Union is more important, has what political philosopher John Rawls calls “lexical” priority as regards following rule of law. This is because absent the nation (which is the Union) there can be no rule of law. This is in fact why the Constitution allows the suspension of Habeas Corpus: to save the preconditions for liberty we may have to suspend its forms; all constitutions recognize states of emergency.
Lincoln was target for assassination by pro-Confederate Maryland gangs and had to be brought into Washington under cover, and Congress would not meet until December 1861. Given the clear and present danger, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and duly sought Congressional approval when Congress reconvened. When the approval was not forthcoming and when the Supreme Court found (under the pro-Confederate Taney) his action to be unconstitutional because it was an Executive action, Lincoln did not pursue the suspension and for most of the Civil War, even in military districts, Habeas Corpus was observed.
Whereas it was not observed in the South which was a proto-Fascist society even before the Civil War: one that banned Abolitionist publications commencing in the 1830s. African Americans in particular enjoyed no “habeas corpus”.
The New York Times article doesn’t support your position. It isn’t treason to prevent secession in a nation with a Constitution that does not allow secession. Please do NOT post links that either you fail to comprehend, or, that you comprehend but hope your readers won’t.
North Carolina and the other states of the Confederacy committed treason when they seceded by way of the wording of the Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
“In order to form a perfect Union”. These words alone make Secession, Treason, and Jefferson Davis and even, perhaps, Robert E. Lee, should have been executed for treason, especially after the cowardly assassination of Lincoln.
It was however decided by Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S Grant to be magnanimous in victory…and to sacrifice black people’s rights for several generations for a perverted form of racist “domestic tranquility”, the results of which are still with us.
Finally,
In response to Corey Meyer, I will give you an ironclad response to your original question, “I wonder if Miss Karen has ever read the secession commissioners speeches…you know where they talk about keeping people that looked like her enslaved.”, IF you answer my question from my previous post concerning; What is more important, saving the union or saving the republic? If anyone else cares to state their thoughts, I’d be glad to see them. But my question MUST be answered, and you MUST ask for me to explain the Secession Commissioners Speeches which will also include the reasons for the Declarations of Secession statements from many of the Deep South States.
Clyde Wilson, the foremost Southern historian has not even covered this aspect fully, though he has mentioned related reasons in his writings. If you wish me to give you the complete reasoning for those speeches and declarations, just answer my question above and ask for the explanation for this. You will never again be put on the defensive about such petty statements! I will NOT be defeated and neither shall you, who believeth in my Lord!
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/lincoln-and-the-corwin-amendment/
The south did not like the Amendment because it would only protect it where it already existed and did not address the territories where the south wanted to expand slavery into…they feared slavery would die if bottled up in just the south.
@Corey Meyer
There was no fear from it ever being killed out. It would have been permanent. And as I said the same offer was offered near the end of the war, and still the South refused, even when on its’ deathbed. People can’t seems to understand it was a matter of principle and NOT bribery as was offered. The principle being the South was not going to be a scape goat to pay off the North’s bills and support the whole government just in order to have slaves. There was more at stake than slaves, it was honor and commitment, something yankees know nothing about!
Here is the full text of the Amendment.
” No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
The text refers to slavery with terms such as “domestic institutions” and “persons held to labor or service” and avoids using the word “slavery”, following the example set at the Constitutional Convention, which referred to slavery in its draft of the Constitution with comparable descriptions of legal status: “Person held to Service”, “the whole Number of free Persons…, three fifths of all other Persons”, “The Migration and Importation of such Persons…
It’s plain and simple, and to the point. There were enough Northern States that had said they would sign the Amendment if it meant the Southern States would stay in the union. The problem was a fort called Sumter which occurred in April. The rushed Amendment never stood a chance, but Ft Sumter killed any further hopes of there being a solution.
Previously and up till the states seceded, the Southern States had needed a balance of power in congress in order to maintain slavery in their states. In doing this these states had to push for newly added states to be pro or anti- slavery. The agreement was known as the Missouri Compromise.
Where the complications were, and what the Southern States did not fully realise was that each state had the Right to accept or deny slavery as part of their state’s law. There could be more free states than slave states, but once the number went past 3/4 the total no. of states, then an Amendment could be passed outlawing slavery in all states. It didn’t need to be on a one on one basis.
What’s even more interesting is the fact that slavery was in fact dying in the South as an institution. Even the CSA Constitution banned the importation of slaves into the CSA, while concerning the US Government, it was still legal.
Virginia was to the point of having so many freed slaves or free blacks that their total number of free blacks was greater than in all the Northern States combined. In the same 4 states I mentioned earlier, there was a large anti-slavery movement, almost equal to that in the North, yet it is rarely mentioned. Impatience was the key in using slavery as a “pretext” for the war, and that was from both sides, but mainly the North. This was because in the Northern States, not even the media would rarely mention the tariff crisis that the South, specifically South Carolina had complained about for so long. This issue was ignored by the Northern press and politicians to the point, Southern States quit even trying to use it as their reason and basis for actions. No, the 97% tax rate of total tax revenue imposed on the South was so high, and so much money to be had from it, from such a wealthy region, it had to be over looked by those wanting some of the candy!
As Lincoln is quoted as saying:
When the South started talking Secession, Lincoln was asked, “Why not let the South go in peace?” To which he replied, “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?” Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South.
The CSA when counted as a nation, those ELEVEN States, their combined economy would rank the 4th largest in the world. The rest of the US States, even with their combined industrialisation would rank no higher than 10th. So yes, we are talking theft here! Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Much the same thing is happening today in the country, except it is the middle class who is being taxed to death. All they’ve done is exchanged Peter and Paul for somebody else.
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
Wow, that last Lincoln quote has been proven false…get with it.
@Corey Meyer
BOY, you finally get up nuff nerve to come back here?
For your information the quote has NOT been proven wrong in any way. Only the source is hard to come by and I have it!—duh!—-
Even your good buddy in ignorance Brooks Simpson does not deny the quote, because I’ve already used it in discussions with him.
You want more, BOY?
You remind me of what they call a “shew fly”!
I despise ignorant and arrogant flies!
Michael– Deo Vindicabamur
Pingback: Another Gaff From the Gift That Keeps On Giving « Crossroads