Lawsuit Filed Against Alabama Governor Over ANV Flag

A Cullman attorney has filed a lawsuit against Governor Robert Bentley, says he’s overstepped his bounds as governor when he removed the Confederate Flags from the state capitol.

An Excerpt from WAAY TV Report:

In the lawsuit, it states that “The Alabama Historical commission is charged with the duty to:

‘promote and increase knowledge and understanding of the history of this State from the earliestime to the present, including the archaeological, Indian, Spanish, British, French, Colonial, Confederate and American eras’ (Alabama Code 41-9-249).”

The lawsuit states the governor has no authority to order the removal of the flags. The suit is asking for declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction.

FULL STORY CONTINUES:

Cullman attorney files lawsuit against governor over Confederate Flag removal – Huntsville News | WAAYTV.com and ABC 31: Appnews


Alabama governor

GET MORE STORIES LIKE THIS

IN YOUR INBOX!

Sign up for our daily email and get the stories everyone is talking about.

Leave a Comment

Comment via Facebook

Comment via Disqus

  • paulinsc

    Can someone please explain to me how so many conservatives ended up on the pro-Confederate flag side of this debate? Let me preface by saying I’m against the banning of things in a free society. That being said, how is it appropriate for a state to fly the flag of a former adversary that willfully broke off from the Union, started a war and fought to protect their “right” to own slaves? Shouldn’t the only flags that fly permanently on the Capitol grounds be the officially recognized flags of our state, federal and municipal governments? Help me out on this one, because it seems like conservative American patriots should be united here.

    • Combat_Vet

      I’m not going to go into a detailed history lesson here, but your statement “…..started a war and fought to protect their “right” to own slaves?” is very wrong.
      The south didn’t start a war for that purpose, every state in the union had slavery.
      So please attempt to locate written material, preferably in a book, possibly in a library written before the politically correct versions were added/changed.
      You will find out what actually started the Civil War, it wasn’t slavery.

      • Terry Silliman

        And also the Northern Union Army sent troops to the south as a show of force as the talks of leaving the union grew stronger. Many took this as an invasion . Some people just look a tiny bit of history to see what they want ,it’s called selective reasoning.
        Most anti flag supporters are spoon fed a diet of lies and unfactual omissions, then tell it so much they believe it is actual truth.. So sad the state of liberals/political correct politicians, and activist get away with the cranking out of lies . But challenge them and they revert to throwing out a race card or the microagression card. This signifies your victory over them ,as they cannot compete vs factual ,historical ,evidence.

      • paulinsc

        Actually, in 1861 all but two of the Northern states had abolished slavery – Maryland and Delaware plus DC. Maryland and DC abolished slavery during the war. The South seceded because the writing was on the wall. They viewed Lincoln as a threat because he was anti-slavery, though not an abolitionist. Despite his assurances that he wouldn’t mess with they South, they split anyway. South Carolina seceded almost immediately after Lincoln was elected. The South’s economy was strong because of the 4 million slaves that were held there, and, in fact, they saw an opportunity to expand their slave-based economy into new territories. But with each new “free” state and territory, the South’s position weakened. You can say that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery but it depends on who you ask. If you’re Southern, it was a war of independence. If you’re not Southern, it was a rebellion against the Union. I think it’s pretty remarkable that Southerners are not only unapologetic, but proud of this part of their history. Not only were they attempting to ramp up the slave economy ad infinitum, but they nearly destroyed the world’s only functioning democracy, losing about a half million lives in the process.

    • Stesta Rawks

      where did you go to school at? Do you have no respect for those AMERICAN soldiers who died… Do you spit on Germans? Japanese? Russians? Italians?
      Are you mental. That flag did more than make you and other leftist dingbat activist say and do the most dumbest things. It fought in the Mexican-American War that gave us the territory now known as California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Stop crying that everything is bigoted and racist. Go get a job you have to much time on your hands.

      • paulinsc

        I’m not sure if you’re responding to my post because, frankly, what you said makes no sense based on the question I posed. I’m a conservative who lives in SC and this debate is really interesting to me and I’d like to get some perspective on it. Up until about a month ago, I was totally neutral on this subject and I’ve never been offended by the Stars & Bars. No need for name calling or insults.

        • Stesta Rawks

          I agree bud. But this manipulation that goes on in this country with the media choosing poorly on important issues has really gotten out of hand sorry for the insults over this little topic. I am a crass person in real life and when I see freedoms being twisted and warped like a flag being banned at stores.. It was just a govt issue at best.. taking off a govt building doesn’t effect me. But calling it racist is a huge lie and the press is manipulating the actual pulse of the country over something as trival as a flag that has been flown for all these years since the civil war.. lets face it racing stripes and stars are bad ass.
          I won’t even start on the attack on religion in the name of civil rights to marry the same sex.. that is just another attack that could have been dealt with quietly if they started their own religion or make their own legal union it would have came and gone with no hoopla.. but they like to take the minority and act like its just killing them if we don’t make changes and make us lie about our history or moral beliefs.

    • Frederick Fassbender

      Yes the South was adversary of the North. That being said there is then and now no Constitutional Admendment that a state once admitted to the union can not leave; part of the resaon that Lee and Davis could not be tried for treason; the South when seceeded was a nation that had a constitution; the North was a foreign invader, provided by Lincoln which Constitutionally illegal, the South defended its homeland no matter what the low information person believes; when Lee moved his Army north the union panicked big time and fought harder as any reasonable minded person would do, consider that the federal Army is and has occupied the Southerners homeland and we fly the flag as a sign of defiance for the last 140 years. Remember the War was the last defense of true freedom.

      • paulinsc

        Excellent reply – and honest! I’m all for “defiance” in the face of centralized power. I get it. I’m just wondering if the symbols of the Confederacy can be separated from the legacy of slavery. That seems to be the issue most detractors have.

    • Bill

      They were not fighting for the right to own slaves. It was tyranny against the north. What do you make of these questions?
      1) Why didn’t Lincoln mention slavery at the start of the war or in the Gettysburg Address?
      2) Why did 4 slave states remain with the Union during the war if they were the enemy because of slavery?(Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri)
      3) Why did the Emancipation Proclamation free only Southern slaves not those in the 4 slave States in the Union?
      4) Why didn’t Congress pass a law outlawing slavery before or during the war?

      • paulinsc

        I realize that slavery has become the default explanation for why the Civil War was fought. The more I learn, however, the more I begin to understand that there was much more to it than that. It’s such a complicated piece of our history that we still can’t get agreement after 150 years! My point, though, is that slavery was a sticking point for the South, mainly for economic reasons. That much is irrefutable.

    • uptohere

      I agree with all but one phrase. The Confederate States did not start the war. They seceded from the union. The union started the war.

      • Terry Silliman

        By sending union troops into positions where they put a choke hold on the CSA. Even thou The south fired the first shot ,it was the North that sent the invasion.

      • paulinsc

        Well, you know what they say… If at first you don’t secede… 🙂

    • Mitch Dabbs

      Hi. I will try to explain. The War For Southern Independence was fought over representation in the Congress. Slavery was an ancillary issue…. At stake was whether the people of a state had the political power to decide what the people in that state wanted or whether interests from other states could dictate their way of life via legislation in Congress. Our Founding Fathers realized it would not be right for a state with a large population to have the same number of members in the House Of Representatives as a state with a smaller population…BUT the way they remedied that was each state having 2 Senators…. For many years this system worked but as the country grew and territories became new states the balance began to tip in favor of the non slave states. This meant that the non slave states in the House could pass any legislation they wanted , to the detriment of the South, like tariffs, and the Senate with more non slave state Senators would approve the legislation. Now comes Lincoln, elected from a political party whose platform was the abolition of slavery. The people of the South realized they were without political power and as the country grew and even more territories became new non slave states they would never recover it. People without political power have to do something to recover that power and the South moved to withdraw from the Union. After all if a state came into the Union voluntarily why couldn’t it leave it the same way? Yes I know the Constitution allows the government to put down insurrections…..But remember this, WE broke away from England for lack of political power in Parliament. So on the one hand our government was founded on the premise that free people must confront tyranny and then puts in the Constitution that the government can crush an insurrection….What gives here? Clearly they can’t have it both ways but that is the reasoning, that the South was in insurrection, that the North used to force the South back into the Union. So why do Conservatives line up on this issue? Because the War For Southern Independence was fought to limit the power of the Federal Government over the wishes of people in the states. This power grab has gone unabated for 160 years and it is getting worse.

      • paulinsc

        Thanks. Great history lesson!

        • Mitch Dabbs

          Thank you and it was my pleasure.

          • paulinsc

            Mitch, I’ve been doing some weekend reading on this and your analysis is pretty on-the-money. I find it fascinating, though, that after 150 years, the question of whether the slave holding states had the right to secede is still hotly debated. Lincoln was in a no win situation. He didn’t want a war but he didn’t want the world’s only democracy to dissolve under his watch. If he allowed the Southern states to secede, it sets a precedent and further destabilizes the Union. It could be anarchy. The South already had a hard time accepting the mandates being imposed by Washington – and, you’re right, their position was weakening in terms of representation. But, at the end of the day, it was the threat of abolition that forced their hand. They wanted to keep what they had, but they also wanted to expand their economy into the new territories where they’d have to compete – sans slaves – with better funded Northern enterprises. So, to say slavery was ancillary I don’t think is accurate. I think, for the South, it was the central reason for secession. For Lincoln, it was only about preserving the Union.

          • Mitch Dabbs

            The reason I think the slavery issue was ancillary to the representation issue in Congress is this: IF the South would have had the political muscle in the Congress to blunt Lincoln’s anti slavery moves I don’t think it would have withdrawn from the Union. But that wasn’t the case. You are right about the Southern States wanted to expand their economies into the territories and would have to compete sans slaves. Why sans slaves,,,,again because of the representation issues in Congress. And as for the better funded Northern enterprises, they were built on the tariffs to protect Northern manufacturing, placed on English manufactured goods needed by and paid for largely by the South. So the citizens of the Southern States have citizens from Northern States, through the Congress, building the Northern states economies while limiting Southern states economies through tariffs and anti slavery measures. i do agree that Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union but that is problematic. (See our previous discussion about the colonies and England.) Just because the North used its vast armies to force the Southern States back into a Union it didn’t want didn’t make it right and in my opinion didn’t permanently solve the issue. (But that is just that, my opinion.) The end result is what we have now. A federal government that continues to grab power from the states over the wishes of the citizens of the states.

          • paulinsc

            Another great point. I still come away with the impression that rebelliousness was just at the root of much of the secessionist movement. Nullification, for example, was a Southern invention. They’d been thumbing their noses at DC for decades before the Civil War. It was a mentality of nation-states – Virginia, in particular. Since there was no provision within the Constitution for whether a state could secede, it was left open to interpretation. Lincoln was a lawyer and argued that because of this, the Framers implied that once you join the Union, there’s no backing out. The South, obviously, saw it differently. But they were so convinced that Lincoln was a closet abolitionist – despite his promises to the contrary – South Carolina didn’t even wait for his inauguration before pulling out. I believe that these disputes could have been resolved peacefully had cooler heads prevailed, but that’s just Monday morning quarterbacking. As for the tariff issue, here’s an interesting piece regarding that part of the argument:
            http://imperialglobalexeter.com/2015/03/02/debunking-the-civil-war-tariff-myth/
            By the way, I am a firm believer in the 10th amendment and am seriously saddened by how we’ve allowed our country to become a political oligarchy. If there were ever a time for another revolution, this would probably be it.

          • Mitch Dabbs

            Thank you Paul. I will read it. May GOD continue to bless us and our Republic. Mitch.

    • ThereAintNoJustice

      Number one, the CSA did not “start” the war. They used their Constitutional right to secede from the Union. The Union started the conflict when they occupied Fort Sumtner and blockaded Charleston. Conservatives support the side they do because the effort to ban the flag is in direct contravention of the 1st Amendment right to free speech. No different than burning the national flag of the USA,

      • paulinsc

        Ok, I get your point, but it’s pretty much agreed that the first shot was fired by The South – that’s my point of reference. And, as I mentioned in my original post, I wasn’t discussing a ban, just trying to understand why some conservatives are “defending” it. Thanks for reply.

        • ThereAintNoJustice

          I don’t think it’s so much as “defending it” as it is defending the right to own it or display it. The flag in question is a part of my heritage but then, so is the flag the Union fought under in 1865. None of my ancestral family who fought for the Union died, yet I have seen records of 2, at least, that died for the Confederacy. So who am I supposed to hold a grudge against. And WHY is the flag so objectionable? It is idiotic, that is my reason.

      • (((Aron)))

        Wrong. Opening fire on a Federal fortification is an act of war. Deal with it.

        • ThereAintNoJustice

          It was an unused fort in the Charleston harbor occupied by Union forces after South Carolina’s secession. The purpose was to blockade cotton shipments. It was not a part of the United States. The invasion and occupation of CSA territory by the Union was an act of war.

          • (((Aron)))

            Wrong. There was no constitutional method for South Carolina to secede. This was not the Articles of Confederation.

            Beauregard started the war. Historians are on my side. Idiots are on yours.

    • Terry Silliman

      Well I agree with your statement about the flag . The way it was turned into a racist smear for us in the south was the reason so many turned to supporting it. It’s the southern way to rebel . Then so many people who see the cycle of tyranny coming full circle once again are now siding against the government.But here’s a question ,of the confederate flag was taken as a symbol of supremist ,mainly the KKK, then why are we not doing the same retaliation vs Islamic so called lone wolf attackers ? Just as Roof did ,a lone gun man and an obvious radical wing nut .But we had no problem lumping the flag with his terrorism .

      • paulinsc

        Thanks for the reply! Great points.

  • Stesta Rawks

    I wonder how things got so turned around.. could it be Propaganda???
    Nice info about the Mexican American War.. Google it sometime.

    In the U.S., increasingly divided by sectional rivalry, the war was a partisan issue and an essential element in the origins of the American Civil War. Most Whigs in the North and South opposed it; most Democrats supported it. Southern Democrats, animated by a popular belief in Manifest Destiny,
    supported it in hope of adding slave-owning territory to the South and
    avoiding being outnumbered by the faster-growing North. John L. O’Sullivan, editor of the Democratic Review,
    coined this phrase in its context, stating that it must be “our
    manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for
    the free development of our yearly multiplying millions

  • ADR

    We have become a divided nation due to a few zealots that have made a campaign out of a non issue. A once honored battle flag has been transformed by haters who make a practice of turning truths into conjured lies in an effort to completely do away with every Judeo-Christian ethic upon which our nation was founded.

  • greatdragon

    We are a divided nation….blame rests with the Muslim, Anti-Christian, anti-white straight people, Hussein Obama a Pro-Left, Pro-Muslim, Pro-Latino illegals that murder people, druggies & rapists. Please note that Hussein Obama made no comment about the illegal male latino that murdered the White lady in San Francisco. Neither did Princess Pelosi who represents the Bay Area. Hussein Obama called the Fort Hood Muslim that murdered our military “WORK PLACE VIOLENCE” Muslim Terrorism is what it is. The TENN. Muslim murderer his act is Muslim Terrorism. the President -Hussein Obama will not use “Muslim Terrorist” because he is Muslim and will NOT offend his Muslim Brothers. He is giving Trillions of American Dollars to Muslims in Iraq and NO Body is saying “Stop This Maddness” IMPEACH OBAMA before he puts the Muslim flag ahead of the USA flag over the White House.