This is shameless pandering at the highest level. 

Intelligent people know that Owens is a grifter who exploits her novelty as a "black conservative" in the cause of making money from podcasts and a You Tube channel. 

But what does this particular nonsense tell us about Owens target audience?  She seems convinced that "her " people, MAGA, will appreciate her love for the confederate flag.  Maybe so. 

Her understanding of what caused the civil war and what the south's reasons for it were is less than childlike. What the intentions of the south's secession were is very well known. They wanted to protect slavery from the threat to its existence they believed the election of Abraham Lincoln represented. Candace Owens seems to be utterly clueless about this. 

I do not see a problem with people whose family members died fighting for that flag to be able to wave it high. It is historical and the idea that your son or daughter went and marched in a war –

So is she advocating getting a license to prove that a family member actually fought in the CW?

.

The Swastika in just about every form is prohibited in Germany. 

ST George's flag until recently was illegal throughout the UK, still illegal in Scotland.

The Confederate Battle Flag isn't illegal, and it is only indirectly related to slavery.

The Confederate Battle Flag is popular for the same reason these bumper stickers are still

prevalent south of the Mason Dixon Line.

Stick it to the Yankees.

it is only indirectly related to slavery.

I couldnt disagree more. For one thing the battle flag was incorporated into the Confederate national flag for the last two years of the war. 

But even without that consideration, the battle flag is the confederate flag in the popular imagination, and is undoubtedly what Candace Owens was referring to. 

Every flag used by confederate forces represented the Confederacy, a white supremacist state. 

I couldnt disagree more. For one thing the battle flag was incorporated into the Confederate national flag for the last two years of the war. 

I could agree less. /s  The current flag was never an official Confederacy flag.

St. Andrews cross was unique on the battlefields because the original flags of many states resulted in many incidents of friendly fire especially at the first battle of Manassas/Bull Run.

The flag you pictured incorporated the battle flag on a field of white symbolizing the Southern Romantic notion of the purity of their cause, the defense of a way of life which included slavery and idolized states rights as opposed to federal rule. It was rarely used because on windless days it looked like a flag of surrender.

But even without that consideration, the battle flag is the confederate flag in the popular imagination, and is undoubtedly what Candace Owens was referring to. 

Most likely, she wasn't smart enough to actually picture the flag she was ranting about.

Every flag used by confederate forces represented the Confederacy, a white supremacist state. 

Only by the inference that they despised the Federal government and were not going to be told how to manage their properties, including their slaves,  Remember Jeff Davis was 100% into spreading slavery and making additional slaves states from the Carribean, Central America or future American territories. Davis's main interest was in expanding slavery for profit, if they won the war.

After the end of the CW, Robert E Lee wanted to outlaw the Confederate Battle Flag simply because it was a divisive symbol between the winners and losers, but that pesky First Amendment....

The Battle Flag achieved it's current notoriety as a racist symbol when adopted by the new Dixiecrat Party and the KKK who's specific goals were to deprive blacks of their new rights.  By the 1960's it was plainly a symbol of resistance to the Civil Rights movement.

Bottom line is that people will believe what they want.

In spite of the South's fascination with blood lines,

(In the colonial societies of the Americas and Australia , a quadroon or quarteron was a person with one quarter African / Aboriginal and three quarters European ancestry.

Similar classifications were octoroon for one-eighth black (Latin root octo- , means "eight") and quintroon for one-sixteenth black.

Quadroon - Wikipedia

certain people of color, like Niki Haley and Candice Owens,

for whatever reason, are in denial about slavery and the Confederate Flag

as it is currently listed as a hate symbol.

Every flag used by confederate forces represented the Confederacy, a white supremacist state.

Meh, as with the War of Revolution, soldiers were fiercely loyal to their state and state governments, not the Federal Government.  That's why Lee led Virginia.

As Candice points out, as most deniers do, the average rebel couldn't afford to own slaves, true,  but he was loyal to the system where his produce or labor was dependent on "old money", usually plantation owners. They started out defending the economic reality of living in the south, capturing any blacks and indenturing them or selling them back into slavery, they ended up defending slavery by default, eventually taking no black Union men or their officers alive.

As a footnote; there were many despicable Plantations which kept their slaves as "indentured  people" well into the 1950's and 1960's by telling them that they hadn't made enough profit and they did so with the support of the local sheriffs.

Black people were held in slavery in the Deep South as late as the 1960's - The Black Youth Project

Lets face it, Owens, like Jones, Limbaugh and a host of others are grifters.

The Confederate battle flag, initially authorized for units of the Confederate armed forces during the American Civil War (1861–1865), has become one of the most recognized, misunderstood, and controversial symbols in American history. Originally designed as a Confederate national flag by William Porcher Miles of South Carolina, it was rejected by the Confederate Congress bu t subsequently adopted by the Confederate army, which needed a banner that was easily distinguishable from the United States flag. The battle flag transformed into a national symbol as the Army of Northern Virginia , with which it was closely associated, also became an important symbol. It even was incorporated into the Confederacy’s second and third national flags. Following the war, proponents of the Lost Cause used the battle flag to represent Southern valor and honor, although it also was implicitly connected to white supremacy. In the mid-twentieth century, the battle flag simultaneously became ubiquitous in American culture while, partly through the efforts of the Ku Klux Klan , becoming increasingly tied to racial violence and intimidation. African Americans conflated the battle flag to opposition to the civil rights movement, while neo-Confederates argued that its meaning had to do with states’ rights and southern identity, not racial hatred. The political and social lines of dispute over the flag remain much the same at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

encyclopediavirginia

The flag represented the Confederacy. 

from the same link

African Americans conflated the battle flag to opposition to the civil rights movement, while neo-Confederates argued that its meaning had to do with states’ rights and southern identity, not racial hatred. The political and social lines of dispute over the flag remain much the same at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

The flag represented the Confederacy. 

It still means different things to different people.

The Confederacy had too many damned flags in 4 years.

Btw, the square flag in your link, more correctly was a battle banner used by the various land elements in the many armies of the CSA.

The popular flag which gets the most recognition is actually a version of the Confederate Navy Jack.

It still means different things to different people.

The problem with that excuse is that even if you have the best of intentions you can still be viewed as part of the problem if you're not being careful. You might very rightly understand that the word 'niggardly' means stingy, but perhaps that wouldn't be the best choice of words when you're trying to to tell your boss who happens to be African American that you need more office supplies.

Do you really want to call your neighbors who happen to be black a bunch of 'naggers' because they've been complaining about your lack of lawn maintenance? Yes, you would be in the right, they are nagging you, but wouldn't it be far more prudent to use another word?

The fact is the confederate battle flag has been used by white supremacists as an expression of their hate and racism. The civil war was fought over slavery, that shouldn't even be in debate for anyone with more than half a brain. The confederates knew it at the time and said so, trying to twist oneself into contortions to make it about States rights is an act of futility.

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." - Vice President of the Confederacy

So the confederate flag was used along with many other confederate flags, but the stars and bars confederate battle flag became the most widely known eventually and it does, whether you like it or not, represent the confederacy and the fight to enslave humans as cattle. Someone can hem and haw all they want about how it means something different to them, but the fact is, if you're having to explain yourself, you're losing the argument.

There is also a biblical principle for why even those who have some fantasy alternate belief about what the confederate flag means to them should choose to discard it.

"²⁷ If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. ²⁸ But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. ²⁹ I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? ³⁰ If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? ³¹ So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. ³² Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God" - 1 Corinthians 10:27-32

So those supposed 'righteous' conservative Christians defending and flying the confederate flag, knowing others view it as a symbol of hate and racism, are choosing to be stumbling blocks for others simply because of their selfish desire to do what they want and feel their own conscience is clean because they made some shallow excuses about how to them it means 'rebel' but to their fellow black Americans it's a declaration of hate.

John is right, "The flag represented the Confederacy".

If your small town business is "Internet Solutions & Integrated Systems" and on all your business cards and the big sign on your building it said "ISIS", you'd probably be scrambling to change it after the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria started terrorizing and blowing people up. The reality is it doesn't really matter what you think it means, it's what the majority of people believe it means or represents.

The problem with that excuse is that even if you have the best of intentions you can still be viewed as part of the problem if you're not being careful.

It's not an excuse and it's simply an example of tribal blaming.

The worst government flag in history is still hated in many countries but hailed by football fans globally.  The colonial empire of England easily is responsible for 150 million deaths worldwide.

Followed by the Mongols, China, Russia, Belgium, France, Portugal...

Not even mentioned because we always forget it was in fact a medieval government with standing armies, The Vatican.

Estimates of death due to the religious wars of Christendom

vary from 300,000 t0 700 million. 

Now that's hatred and racism

and yet they still have influence and wealth.

Go figure.

[✘]

Hopefully, in the new year, you will learn what MAGA really means, which is pretty much being against everything the left Is try to foist upon all US citizens.

And no, it's not about supporting White supremacy or White grievance, it's about destroying the myth of systemic racism perpetuated by some race hustler progressives.

I already know what MAGA is mainly about - white people who feel they are losing "their" country to non white immigrants and non white native-born Americans. This has been plain as day from day one and is the reason Trump was so readily accepted by them. He was the king birther. 

Ypou know nothing of what MAGA is. If what you posted were true, then myself, my step son, who is full Filipino and several of my friends, would not have married Asian women.

Your claims are [bullshit.....deleted]

Is that like saying one can't be racist because they know a Black person...

So in your words, what does maga mean?

(deleted)

you didn't mean to direct that to ender did you?

Did you mean to say that to someone else?

I think so

[no value]

that was for bugsy

No problem. I figured that.

Is that like saying one can't be racist because they know a Black person

Its in the same ballpark as saying racism must be over because Barack Obama was elected president. 

i knew the ignorance he was referring to

You posted something of 'no value'? Darn, often that's the more interesting stuff to read.

You'd have to desperate for entertainment to think there was value there. 

JR, always with the 'flattest' of dead-pan humor. I get a kick out of it when it is 'delivered.' 

1. Happy Holidays! 
2. Merry Christmas!
   

Are these family members and brides active and passive conservatives (MAGA-themed) is the operative question!

Also, I would be remiss if I left Hallux out. The humor is there (always)! Props!

"Candace Owens. She got to go. She can't come," he said.

T.I. and Owens got into a heated exchange during the 2019 REVOLT TV summit in Atlanta. The rapper has continued to criticize Owens for her   "dangerous" political takes  and claimed she was   "being used for propaganda."  He doubled down on the theory during his conversation with Cannon.

"I think she a paid plant. I think someone paid her to come out here and speak against everything the majority of us are standing for," he said. "... So white people are always right? You telling me law enforcement is always right? You telling me the United States of America has always been right when it comes to dealing with us? And that's her story. And you can't trust that story because we have facts that tell us otherwise ... She seems to have forgotten that she's black. She has turned in her black card and crossed over."

complex

Back in January of this year, Owens attacked New York Rep.  Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez  for being “fiscally irresponsible” because the newly elected congresswoman couldn’t afford an apartment in Washington, D.C. However, reporter Nathan Bernard exposed Owens by posting a lawsuit that showed “she rented a $3,500 apartment, lived there for six months rent-free, then claimed she had gotten ‘toxic mold sickness’ and threatened to sue her landlord to avoid paying rent.” She allegedly stopped paying rent in September of 2016 and was evicted in January of 2017, which coincides with her “coming out” as a conservative only months later.

"When you say something like, 'Oh,  Candace Owens , we don't want you in our culture, you don't understand Black culture,' I have to keep reminding you that I don't want to be a part of this culture—I want to destroy it," she said. "I want to destroy it further than it's already destroyed itself. I want to go backward. Your idea of progressivism is clearly regressive. Our children cannot read. This is a new plantation. All of the same problems when slavery was in existence." newsweek

She is a fucking whack job grifter.

All of the same problems when slavery was in existence."

This moron says slavery is the same as not slavery. 

Can only shake my head when she says things like I want to go backwards yet I hate progressive people because they are going backwards....

Yes she is a moron.

As with Diamond and Silk, Candice has figured out how to suck money out of white wallets ... I guess she deserves a 'kuddo' for that ... /s

Forgot all about those two hustlers -Zircon and Polyester

During the Holocaust Jews in the death camps pulled bodies from the gas chambers and transported them to the crematorium.  They had an excuse.  It gave them another day of life.

Candace Owens is without excuse.

 It is historical and the idea that your son or daughter went and marched in a war – that people are just so stupid they think 'they were fighting for slavery' – those people who fought were piss poor and never had a slave a single day in their life," Owens groused.

People do not usually champion, bad actors in their families by announcing a parade with banners and marching bands and celebration booths. Here is President Lincoln speaking at his second inauguration in March 1865 on the topic. Note: The prominent statement about slavery being the cause of the war. (See INDENTED PARAGRAPH below.)

NOTE: The Civil War ended in May 1965 .

Second Inaugural Address

Lincoln's Second Inaugural is one of the shortest inaugural addresses ever. It is considered by many not only the greatest inaugural address, but the greatest speech of any kind ever delivered in the United States.

Source: Neely, Mark E. Jr. 1982. The Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia. New York: Da Capo Press, Inc.

United States Capitol, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1865

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phrase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thought were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it - all sought to avert it. While the inaugeral [sic] address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war - seeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

* One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope-fervently do we pray-that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God will that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan - to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler.  nps

* Not indented in the original. Indentation by CB.

First Inaugural Address

Lincoln's First Inaugural was written in Springfield in January of 1861. According to his law partner, William Herndon, Lincoln used 4 sources for his speech: Henry Clay's Great Speech delivered in 1850, President Andrew Jackson's Proclamation Against Nullification, Senator Daniel Webster's Reply to Senator Robert Hayne, and the Constitution. Lincoln had the first draft set in print and allowed David Davis, Orville Browning, Francis Blair, and William Henry Seward to read it. upon their recommendations Lincoln made revisions that made it a more conciliatory document. Source: Neely, Mark E. Jr. 1982. The Abraham Lincoln Encyclopedia . New York: Da Capo Press, Inc. United States Capitol, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1861 Fellow-citizens of the United States: In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of his office." I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. * Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. .  .  .  . ** I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these Sates is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and Union will endure forever - it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it-break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union,-that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion-no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States, in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to face obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm or deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union, may I not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly to, are greater than all the real ones you fly from? Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution-certainly would, if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guarantees and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. Nor foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments, are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession? Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy, or despotism in some form is all that is left. I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the fugitive slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while the fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other. Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I made no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should under existing circumstances favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the Convention mode seems preferable, in that it allow amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions, originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institution so the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart form my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now by implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority form the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope, in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North or on yours of the South, that truth, and that justice, will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people. By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect and defend" it. I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and heath-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln , edited by Roy P. Basler  nps

*    Italics, CB.

**  Bolding, CB.

A shameless opportunist at the most basic level.

Hey, that bitch has bills to pay....

Every Receipt Proving Candace Owens Is A Con Artist (newsone.com)

Candace Owens Lives Rent-Free In $3,500 Apartment, Claims Toxic Mold Illness, Sues Landlord, Legal Documents Reveal - Bernard Media

This lady is a snake oil salesman and the Magamillions are licking it up off the public bathroom floor. They are simply happy to have a black friend so they can say well you know.