Stars and Bars

[Ken B]

We don't have enough fights in the Diner.

Whatcha think?




Here's my take. It's not inherently a hate symbol or intended to affront. But as the SC flag, it is intended as an upraised middle finger. Get rid of it as an official state symbol everywhere it appears as one.


Hillary confederate flag buttons! Get'em before the memory hole does!https://mobile.twitter.com/joelpollak/status/613314510229671936/photo/1

[Moonfish]

.

[Cato]

Get rid of it as an official state symbol everywhere it appears as one.

Amen!

[david johnson]

Leave the flag alone   If SC decides to move it somewhere else, it's their business.

[lisa needs braces]

Northern whites made a deal with Southern whites after the Civil War -- as an act of healing and preserving the Union, Northern whites decided to not shame their Southern cousins at all about their treasonous and idiotic acts (and more importantly, gave them permission to treat blacks however they wanted short of slavery.) This is why the Confederate flag and southern "pride" over those treasonous acts has been allowed to endure.

[Wendell_E]

We don't have enough fights in the Diner.

Whatcha think?




Here's my take. It's not inherently a hate symbol or intended to affront. But as the SC flag, it is intended as an upraised middle finger. Get rid of it as an official state symbol everywhere it appears as one.


Hillary confederate flag buttons! Get'em before the memory hole does!https://mobile.twitter.com/joelpollak/status/613314510229671936/photo/1

Yeah, the flag's an embarrassment, and ought not to be flown/displayed in any official state capacity.  Individuals, of course are free to make their own decisions.  I like knowing the stupid/hateful by the symbols they display.  If mah fellow suthehnehs wish to celebrate the heritage, they should be hospitable or eat good Southern cookin', which oddly (or not) is pretty much the same thing as "soul food".  Or drink ice tea, or sumthin'.

Regarding the thread name.  The flag in the picture is not the "Stars and Bars".  The Wikipedia article discussing the various Confederate flags has the actual "Stars and Bars" at the very top.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

[Karl Henning]

Heritage Not Of Hate

FTFT

[Karl Henning]

The broader push to remove the stars and bars from the [So Carolina] state Capitol gained a prominent Republican voice Tuesday — the son of Thurmond, who, it was revealed after his 2003 death, had fathered a biracial child.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/23/protesters-rally--urge-vote--remove-confederate-flag--south-carolina-state-capitol/29155099/

[Karl Henning]

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley ordered the four Confederate flags on the state Capitol grounds in Montgomery to be taken down Wednesday morning

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/confederate-flag-furor/alabama-gov-robert-bentley-orders-confederate-flag-taken-down-capitol-n380946

[Florestan]

We don't have enough fights in the Diner.

Whatcha think?

Want fight? Here you have fight: which article of the US Constitution formally prohibited / prohibits secession?

[Jubal Slate]

It's now the Racist Flag.

[Ken B]

Want fight? Here you have fight: which article of the US Constitution formally prohibited / prohibits secession?

Which article of Christianity formally prohibits slavery?

There are many arguments. One is that there IS a mechanism. It is called "amendment" and it has been used often. Another is that the federal govt is entitled to enforce a republican form of government on the state. A third is that the federal govt can enforce rights for its citizens, and that is impossible if a state can just deny the federal govt jurisdiction. (This was the logic of the nullification struggles too.)
But this has all been discussed at length elsewhere, by people who can explain it better than I can. Or will. 

[Ken B]

It's now the Racist Flag.

I accept that some people don't see or use it that way. I think it was added in SC that way, that it's a symbol of a terrible cause, and should not be part of any state symbol.

Personally it has always made me roll my eyes. In grade 8 my history teacher said he was struck by how little sympathy we -- a class of Canadians! -- had for the South. Why should we have sympathy??   

[Karl Henning]

"They're more to be scolded than pitied . . . ."

[Todd]

The current anti-confederate flag swirl is not without its unfortunate victims.

[Florestan]

Which article of Christianity formally prohibits slavery?

1. Answering a question by another question is an obvious sign of weakness, to begin with.

2. "Christianity" is neither a constitution nor a federal state.

3. Show me "The Articles of Christianity" and then I will answer.

There are many arguments. One is that there IS a mechanism. It is called "amendment" and it has been used often. Another is that the federal govt is entitled to enforce a republican form of government on the state. A third is that the federal govt can enforce rights for its citizens, and that is impossible if a state can just deny the federal govt jurisdiction. (This was the logic of the nullification struggles too.)

I did not ask for arguments. I asked for the one US Constitution article which formally (or even informally) prohibited / prohibits secession.

the federal govt is entitled to enforce a republican form of government on the state

1. Which article of the US Constitution says so?

2. Did the Confederation ever proclaimed itself a monarchy?

On a more general note, what do you make of this:

http://jim.com/treason.htm

It seems to me that his logic is impecable and irrefutable and valid for each and every constitution past, present or future.

But this has all been discussed at length elsewhere, by people who can explain it better than I can. Or will. 

I thought you wanted fight. I was wrong, apparently.

[Karl Henning]

The current anti-confederate flag swirl is not without its unfortunate victims.

You can still see General Lee with the flag if you watch "Dukes of Hazzard" reruns on CMT or online.

Yay!

[Jubal Slate]

You can still see General Lee with the flag if you watch "Dukes of Hazzard" reruns on CMT or online.

Yay!

We can remove the flag from the show. We have the technology...

[mc ukrneal]

I did not ask for arguments. I asked for the one US Constitution article which formally (or even informally) prohibited / prohibits secession.

1. Which article of the US Constitution says so?

2. Did the Confederation ever proclaimed itself a monarchy?

On a more general note, what do you make of this:

http://jim.com/treason.htm

It seems to me that his logic is impecable and irrefutable and valid for each and every constitution past, present or future.

I thought you wanted fight. I was wrong, apparently.

I seem to remember seeing this somewhere, but I was not focused on it and did not participate (at least I don't think I did - did I?), so I'll bite (not knowing or remembering any previous context).

This is not as simple as yes or no. But let's look at the facts. There is no article (to my knowledge) that outright talks about secession in this context (meaning using that word). Article 1, Section 10 comes closest when it says that no state will enter into a treaty, alliance, or confederation. So I guess this is the simple answer to your question 1. This pretty much kills secession.  That said, it has long been debated with some points for and against (and there are numerous figures from American history that will state quite different views, especially concerning the adoption of the Constitution). My own view is that when the states ratified the Constitution, they were giving up many rights forever (including secession). This was all later decided by the Civil War and some landmark Supreme Court cases (perhaps someone can remember the names - it involved Texas), so it is sort of a moot point to some degree. There has also long been a fundamental question of whether the States give away only those rights/issues specified in the Constitution or items not laid out there are to be assumed by the Federal Government. I also lean to the latter on this one. But this is another topic with rich discussions.

As to your second question, no. Though here too, the confederacy was perhaps not quite a democracy either. The confederate constitution mostly lifted the US Constitution, though it interestingly took away rights from the States in some areas (that were granted under the US Constitution). It also granted additional rights. The 'election' was not a true election, but each state sent delegates to a convention and the new president was elected in this way. Jefferson Davis was elected unanimously by all six states that assembled at that time (with Texas an observer). There was another election later in 1861 that confirmed him, but he ran unopposed.

I don't have time to read that article at the moment, but I read a little to get the gist of it. I disagree with the way he calls the union a contract. The way he makes it sound is that I can cancel at any time and retain my autonomy (like cancelling my phone or changing gardeners). As I mentioned, I have a different view of the rights given up when they joined.

Constitutional history and law is a fascinating area with more gray area than black or white.

[snyprrr]

Northern whites made a deal with Southern whites after the Civil War -- as an act of healing and preserving the Union, Northern whites decided to not shame their Southern cousins at all about their treasonous and idiotic acts (and more importantly, gave them permission to treat blacks however they wanted short of slavery.) This is why the Confederate flag and southern "pride" over those treasonous acts has been allowed to endure.

Treason Against Tyranny Is Patriotism