The Protesters Are Getting Out Of Hand

These protesters
are getting
completely
out of
hand.

Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny.

The preamble of the Federal Constitution says:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, 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."

It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government - the ballot.

For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one entire half of the people, is to pass a bill of attainder, or, an ex post facto law, and is therefore a violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld from women and their female posterity.

To them this government has no just powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and daughters, of every household - which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries dissension, discord, and rebellion into every home of the nation.

Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office.

The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the constitutions and laws of the several states is today null and void, precisely as is every one against Negroes.

Susan B. Anthony - 1873

Empath,
I am having a hard time seeing the relationship between a group of people protesting for their right to vote and garner equality and a group of people with all the freedoms afforded every American protesting a cause. IMHO protesting the war and participating in civil disobedience is as noble as protesting an abortion clinic. These latter two causes are premised on saving lives and neither one are what I would consider noble. They may be just and good causes but they certainly aren't on the same plane as suffrage.

Any relationship between the present protests and those I've cited have not been outlined by me. The connection comes from within you. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

But.... since you brought it up, let's consider it.

A difficult thing to do is to determine how we ourselves would have acted had we viewed such demonstrations, protests and civil disobediances from that time frame. Yes, now we can look at it and see the injustice. We can look at the actions of those "criminals", and "unpatriotic" protestors now, and see that yes, the efforts had a noble goal, and because of it we're a bit closer to justice. Yes, now we can, since we're not blinded by the same conditionings and ignorances of that day.

Can you say that had you been there at that time, you would have possessed the outstanding insight to look beyond your upbringing, and the disgust of their illegal activities, which included such things as arson and destruction of artifacts of art, and find their cause to be just? Can you say that you would have joined in their cause? Or would you have dismissed their actions and protests as ravings of unpatriotic, anti-American, misdirected and a following of manipulative instigators? Even the supreme court decided against her. Notice the wording in Ms Anthony's little speech. Note how disparaging it is of her country. Well, I'll tell..... that little crook, that little instigator never saw satisfaction in her lifetime. She died unfulfilled, far before the fruits of her labor were ever realized in 1920. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Do you know what though? She's a hero. Who would have thought that within a hundred years her image would appear on a U.S. coin? Certainly no one at that time did.

Ah, those dang protestors. It seems to be as unending as our wars. And the civil disobedience.. can you imagine that? There's the destruction of the tea merchants cargo, the destruction of valuable paintings, the plastering of placards on a civil servant's dwellings, the stopping of traffic, the tying up law enforcement resources. Do you know that should I become detained in traffic by those protestors, I'll personally find it quite irritating, and a violation of my rights? But, I'm in no vantage point to determine the full validity of the complaints. Oh, but it would be great if simple peaceful assembly, or parades scheduled with officials would actually bring about serious consideration of grievances, but the examples are difficult to find.

Today's protest.... how should I view them? I don't know. I'm in the wrong time frame. A hundred years from now, the citizen's blessed by hindsight will know more. But I don't, and you don't. One of the most difficult things it seems is for one to admit ignorance. We must know, and we must project an image of knowing. I will offer some insight though. Knowledge is finite. Ignorance is infinite. It'll always be that way, and there's no way to change it. Admitting ignorance is no disgrace. Taking sides in areas of ignorance is foolish. I don't know the validity of today's protests. Maybe in a hundred years one of the protestors will have his image on a coin. Maybe the one TKL advocates slugging.... I don't know.

Ms Anthony's efforts, unlike the white males that crafted what they considered the best government for themselves, and only for themselves, actually secured the rights for far more than just women. If you'll notice the last word of her little speech posted in my previous message she referenced another race as also being 'people'. Her efforts were directly responsible for such rights being granted to women, blacks, the red man (and women), the chinese, and every other race that the while males considered subservient.

One hero fights against his known enemy, knowing he could be injured or even killed for what he considers a just cause, and knowing he'll return home to a hero's welcome. Another hero fights against an unknown enemy, facing off against their friends, family and neighbors, knowing they could be injured, incarcerated, ostracized and ridiculed for what they consider a just cause, and knowing they will return to a welcome of contempt.

[ QUOTE ]
Empath said:
Any relationship between the present protests and those I've cited have not been outlined by me. The connection comes from within you. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If the post you made has no relationship to the other threads on protest then what is the relevance of the post? Are you just tossing out a random history lesson? If that's the answer then ok, I enjoyed it.

I would not presume to know what I would have done back in that era. Seeing that woman make up half or more of the population I would hope I would have been open to their ideas. I hope my feelings for equality would be the same as they are today but I don't know.

I don't know how the future will view today's war protester but I do know the country is ruled by majority and 70+% of the country supports the war so that's good enough for me. If 51% were against the war I would understand the civil disobedience.

When you consider that virtually all woman would at least accept suffrage and some number of men promoted suffrage then you have a number well over 50% and that constitutes a majority and the majority should definitely be heard. When the majority goes without a voice a mechanism must be found to make them heard. In the case you site, civil disobedience was the mechanism. I would also defend a non-majority that was denied their civil rights as granted by the constitution. This includes the minority protesters when acting legally and not violating the rights of others.

This thread is a little deep for this simple southerner so I offer you the last word on the subject. I'm going to a lighter thread you're making my brain hurt. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Civil Disobedience is one thing. Rioting for Peace is something else. I remember THAT from the Vietnam days. Now it is starting again. Those who Riot for Peace, only garner my total and Utter Contempt!

Why sanction either? Civil disobedience by a crowd or mob is by definition a riot. A person or crowd could have the most noble of causes to which they wish to call attention. Regardless, unlawfulness is unlawfulness and has no bearing on the validity of a grievance. It is not excusable even after the 'cause' is realized.

hmm. interesting discussion.

great points!

empath, you make a very good point regarding unlawfulness. if a protester/group becomes unlawful, they will be treated as lawbreakers--regardless of their cause.

while i see the purpose in stopping traffic (greater attention), blocking buildings, etc, i certainly dont agree with it.

but hey, the protesters hopefully know what they are getting into, and will accept the consequences (and perhaps positive effects as well).

the bottom line for me: protest all you like. dont be violent. dont disrupt.
if you choose to disrupt or be violent, be prepared for the consequences, like being arrested, placed in jail (perhaps unpleasant conditions), fines, court costs, etc.

do not expect the police to be "nice", if you are not. they should be professional, which may mean that resistance will be met with some force. not undue force, but enough to get the job done. comply with the law enforcement, be nice to them, and there probably will be no real trouble.

resistance is futile!

heh, heh...kidding!

Bob