Dear Editor,

I have been reading about the election regarding on-premise consumption of alcohol. I lived the first 25 years of my life in San Saba, with the exception of two years in the Army. I have always kept in contact with San Saba through visitation and the San Saba News. I know I don't have a vote, but I do have a concern. When we think of alcohol or anything else, we must ask ourselves do I control it or does it control me? Anything that controls us, if it's not Christ it is sin.

I thank God that we live in a country where we have the freedom to choose. I lived through those "dry" days in San Saba. I was 20 years old when I took my first trip to Llano and drank my first beer. It didn't take long for me to become a drunkard and for 12 years I was a prisoner to alcohol. On October 12, 1963, I hit rock bottom, only God could get me out of the hell I was in, and He did. I made a promise that day that I'd never drink again. I've kept that promise.

I would like to suggest to anyone who read Proverbs 31:6-7 to go back and start with Proverbs 31:1 and read through verse 7. Read it carefully. A Godly mother is confronting her wayward son who is guilty of two sins. One is infidelity and the other is drunkenness. When we come to verse 6 & 7, the scripture is talking about having mercy on those who are ready to perish. They had no pain killing drugs in those days. They used alcohol for medical purposes, the same as was mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:23.

I cannot answer for anyone else, I only speak for me, that's what we do when we vote. I respect a person's right to choose.

Sincerely,

Williard G. House

Kermit, Texas

I have lived in San Saba my entire 50 years of life and I remember a time when bootleggers were a means for people in our city to acquire alcohol, as a child I remember when this city voted "wet" therefore, in my teen years you could purchase alcohol at some local stores and not be of age (because they wanted to make a sale (money!!, Profit!!) I have took notice of Dads who say they Casually drink and offer their son that first drink and that son became a alcoholic!!!!Parents who party with their kids in our pecan bottoms and upstanding individuals of our community who sing the loudest in the Church choir and are in every Church play consume.. alcohol!!!!!I have invited people to Church and their answer" why go to Church "those people" Drink and party with the rest of us, so what makes them any different!!!! Let me tell you the World is watching and Christians are suppose to be "set apart" so rise up and be separate......This alcohol issue is all about profit, all about money, with no concern of the outcome> (A leader who is a great oppressor lacks understanding, But he who hates unjust gain will prolong his days.) This issue is "ill gotten gain" and My God will not bless!!!! The book of James tells us ..."if you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and he will give it to you. He will not rebuke you for asking. But when you ask him, be sure that your faith is in God alone. Do not waver, for a person with divided loyalty is as unsettled as a wave of the sea that is blown and tossed by the wind. Such people should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Their loyalty is divided between God and the world, and they are unstable in everything they do...." Alcohol kills the liver, kills the person or people in the oncoming car and kills the Soul........ God Bless San Saba and Rev Watson for taking a stand....I vote "NO"

Joan Hunt

San Saba, TX

Dear Editor:

I am writing in response to the letter written by Jeff Cheek of Medford, Oregon and his disgust at the First National Flag of the confederacy. I would like to address each issue he raised one by one.

#3. Texas was never out of the union and secession was illegal. The case cited was Texas vs. White in 1869. Of course the court of the winning side will always argue that secession was illegal. The victor of any war will write the history books and the losers will have the history put upon them. However, there is always another side to the story.

As mentioned in my letter the first week, the South was rolling in money. Before the war the richest states in the union were the South with Mississippi and Virginia the richest. The largest population was in the north and therefore they had the most representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. All money bills come from the House.

The money from the South was not used for Southern projects but rather for northern expansion such as harbors, railroads, turnpikes and other improvements. In 1860, 50% of the U.S. wealth was in the hands of 39% in the South. The South also owned 57% of all U.S. exports. From Lincoln's point of view the U.S. would decline economically and rapidly without the South's money, and she must not be permitted to leave.

Of course the idea of state secession today sounds foreign. But in that time period it was an understood right, even taught at West Point! Secession was not new as the founding fathers were nothing more than secessionists themselves. At that time Americans did not view themselves as citizens of the United states but rather citizens of their home state. Before the constitution, the colonies agreed to the Articles of Confederation of 1781.

The Articles came about as the colonies needed to repay back their war debts and they needed something to make them appear legitimate in the eyes of the world powers. The articles plainly use the term that applies to the colonies as "a perpetual union." These articles were considered too binding and 9 states seceded to form the U.S. Constitution. This would be considered the first American secession.

When the U.S. Constitution came about this term of "a perpetual union" was changed to "a more perfect union." States wanted the right to leave the union if they wished to do so. Later other states would try to leave before 1861.

After the war, Salmon P. Chase, a Lincoln appointee and his former Secretary of the Treasury, was now the new Chief Supreme Court Justice. With a trial pending, Chase issued a written legal opinion that said, "Secession Was Not Rebellion." Chase could have tried Jefferson Davis and it could have been the trial of the ages. A federal grand jury was already picked and the stage was set, but it never happened. Why?

The real story here is if Davis were tried he would in fact win as the states did have the inherent right to leave the union. There was a genuine fear that Davis would win and walk right back into the Confederate White House. When word got out the matter was dropped. This is why no Confederate government official or military officers were ever tried for treason or rebellion. Davis himself wanted a trial and there was strong support to prosecute former confederate officers and especially those educated at West Point.

Chase could have tried Davis but rather chose the Texas vs. White case to make a ruling with no opposition and no trial. This was the easy way out. The reason was clear to those at the time. You see in the courtroom Salmon P. Chase was also no match for Davis. There was no way that he would ever leave himself or the victorious U.S. government open for any argument. He did not want to be embarrassed as Davis was considered the foremost constitutional lawyer of his time.

Next week I shall write about slavery, Lincoln and his policies and attitudes.

Jan K. Huffstetler

San Saba, TX