We don't have enough fights in the Diner.
Whatcha think?
(http://media2.fdncms.com/styleweekly/imager/richmond-graphic-designer-doug-dobey-mocke/u/original/1932218/994570_10151754547427440_1392298077_n.jpg)
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 (https://mobile.twitter.com/joelpollak/status/613314510229671936/photo/1)
.
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/fashion-crash-collision-couple-stupid-i_m_with_stupid-mba0510_low.jpg)
Quote from: Ken B on June 23, 2015, 02:09:37 PM
Get rid of it as an official state symbol everywhere it appears as one.
Amen!
Leave the flag alone :) If SC decides to move it somewhere else, it's their business.
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.
Quote from: Ken B on June 23, 2015, 02:09:37 PM
We don't have enough fights in the Diner.
Whatcha think?
(http://media2.fdncms.com/styleweekly/imager/richmond-graphic-designer-doug-dobey-mocke/u/original/1932218/994570_10151754547427440_1392298077_n.jpg)
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 (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
QuoteHeritage Not Of Hate
FTFT
Quote from: Matthew Diebel & William CummingsThe 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/
Quote from: Erik OrtizAlabama 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
Quote from: Ken B on June 23, 2015, 02:09:37 PM
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?
It's now the Racist Flag.
Quote from: Florestan on June 24, 2015, 10:33:19 AM
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. 8)
Quote from: MN Dave :) on June 24, 2015, 10:58:02 AM
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??
"They're more to be scolded than pitied . . . ."
The current anti-confederate flag swirl is not without its unfortunate victims. (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/warner-bros-stop-licensing-dukes-hazzard-products-confederate/story?id=31993341)
Quote from: Ken B on June 24, 2015, 11:00:20 AM
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.
Quote
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.
Quotethe 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 (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.
Quote
But this has all been discussed at length elsewhere, by people who can explain it better than I can. Or will. 8)
I thought you wanted fight. I was wrong, apparently.
Quote from: Todd on June 24, 2015, 11:18:56 AM
The current anti-confederate flag swirl is not without its unfortunate victims. (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/warner-bros-stop-licensing-dukes-hazzard-products-confederate/story?id=31993341)
You can still see General Lee with the flag if you watch "Dukes of Hazzard" reruns on CMT or online.Yay!
Quote from: karlhenning on June 24, 2015, 11:25:20 AM
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...
Quote from: Florestan on June 24, 2015, 11:19:32 AM
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 (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.
Quote from: -abe- on June 24, 2015, 01:21:35 AM
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
Does anyone else see this as a massive distraction to keep us from the TPP? hmmm?
let's look up the word "appeasement"....
Amazon, Ebay, et al, should also ban Che stuff, Chinese flag, gay pride flag, etc.,... juuuuuust to be fair,.... no?
Bolshevik Family Values
also... wait til they stage a bombing at a gay pride event,... done by,... guess who??,tee hee.... a Chriiiiistian. White. Male. (blonde hair/blue eyes no longer need- just get a Jhooo- since no one seems to be able to tell the dif anymore)
or... am I not indeed free to offend your delicate sensibilities? oh my, the drama indeed
Go ahead- don't look up the guy who started this flag flap, and see who this Mr. "White" is.... mm???
10 Planks of Communism
Rules for Radicals #12
... and everyone believes it and plays along....
So interesting how detached the members of the victims' families were on TV.... seeing they'll all get a cool $3million for their acting skillz troubles. And, HAVE YOU SEEN the arrest video....??? whaaaa???... and Burger King to boot?????
And yet there's door-to-door searches for the two escaped felons...
DOES ANYONE EVEN ASK AAAANY QUESTIONS ANYMORE... OR DO YOU JUUUUST BELIEVE WHAT MSNBC-ABC-CNN TELL YOU???? (nO, THE MEDIA WATCHDOGS WOULD NEVER BE IN COLLUSION WITH THE GOVERNMENT to try to systematically dismantle the Bill of Rights, tetc.,...)
"UN ready to step in and occupy USA"......"after the guns have been confiscated"....
meanwhile- stars n bars on B. Clinton's 1996 campaign in the south.... yaaawn....
"I didn't know I was against _________ until the TV told me I was"
yaaawn yaaawn
Quote from: Lysander SpoonerThe pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general — not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man — although that was not the motive of the war — as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle — but only of degree — between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ >from each other only in degree.
If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.
Quote from: Lysander SpoonerStill another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this — that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace."
Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people — or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) — could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.
All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats — so transparent that they ought to deceive no one — when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 24, 2015, 12:42:27 PM
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.
This is excellent.
Human beings being limited no framer could anticipate every contingency. Those not explictly mentioned must be dealt with by reasoning. Does the constitution mention flag burning, or political contributions, or Japanese internment, or theTVA? Even Marbury is based on a structural argument not a single explocit clause. So Andrei's demand is obtuse. He should demand not a clause but a clause
or a line of reasoning, just like eveyone else does in every situation. Even strict constructionists apply freedom of the press to TV journalism, and TV is nowhere in the document. Interpretation and reasoning cannot be avoided.
Next as to monarchy. Once seceded the feds would be unable to prohibit the independent Alabama from becoming a monarchy; that is a reductio argument against secession. There are other rights, such as those in amendments. Once secession is granted they cannot be enforced. The right to representation in the federal house is one such for example.
I don,t want a
slaughter Andrei. If you are teduced to demanding a clause not an argument you are dead on arrival.
Quote from: Lysander SpoonerInasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
Quote from: Ken B on June 24, 2015, 01:19:48 PM
Human beings being limited no framer could anticipate every contingency. Those not explictly mentioned must be dealt with by reasoning.
That´s exactly what Lysander Spooner has done: by legal and common-sense reasoning he has destroyed not only the US Constitution, but each and every constitution everywhere, past, present and future.
And no, as long as you won´t read his whole tract I am not going to enter into any further debate. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 24, 2015, 01:35:24 PMThat´s exactly what Lysander Spooner has done: by legal and common-sense reasoning he has destroyed not only the US Constitution, but each and every constitution everywhere, past, present and future.
He did nothing of the sort.
Quote from: Todd on June 24, 2015, 01:40:09 PM
He did nothing of the sort.
And no, as long as you won´t read his whole tract I am not going to enter into any further debate. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 24, 2015, 01:27:52 PM
Frankly Andrei quoting this old stuff from Spooner ought to embarass you. That quote for instance "proves" too much. If you accept the argument then there is no law. That's why it is, to put it kindly, a silly argument. You don't believe it yourself. You would ban abortion, murder, rape, theft, by law. Will you apply that law to those who never agreed to be bound by it? Take it up with Mr Spooner.
You have argued on this forum that only cops should have guns and that guns should be illegal. Who signed the law enacting cops? Can anyone who didn't sign claim exemption?
You support monarchy. Where's your list of signatories?
And btw Andrei, I would be surprised if Todd has not read Spooner, as have I. He is popular in some of the fetid neo confederate fever swamps of the American anarchocapitalist movement. He gets trotted out endlessly.
Quote from: Florestan on June 24, 2015, 01:41:48 PMAnd no, as long as you won´t read his whole tract I am not going to enter into any further debate.
OK.
Quote from: Ken B on June 24, 2015, 01:44:19 PM
Frankly Andrei quoting this old stuff from Spooner ought to embarass you. That quote for instance "proves" too much. If you accept the argument then there is no law. That's why it is, to put it kindly, a silly argument. You don't believe it yourself. You would ban abortion, murder, rape, theft, by law. Will you apply that law to those who never agreed to be bound by it? Take it up with Mr Spooner.
You have argued on this forum that only cops should have guns and that guns should be illegal. Who signed the law enacting cops? Can anyone who didn't sign claim exemption?
Spooner is absolutely right and spot on on everything he says. We all support this or that form of government, but are we willing to take the responsibility for it?
Would you sign, with full name, social security number and postal address, a paper that would authorize the US Government you have voted for, or not voted for but you still recognize as legitimate, to do anything that that government deems fit to do, and that you be held personally responsible for the result of the said government´s actions? Yes or No.
Quote
You support monarchy. Where's your list of signatories?
Well, as different from the US Republican Constitution, the Romanian monarchical consttitution was twice subjected to a nationwide referendum, and each time it was adopted by a vast majority. ;D ;D ;D
Now, either two nationwide (secret ballot) referenda represent the will of the people, or they don´t. Pick your choice.
Quote from: Florestan on June 24, 2015, 02:01:07 PMSpooner is absolutely right and spot on on everything he says.
Incorrect.
Quote from: MN Dave :) on June 24, 2015, 12:05:14 PM
We can remove the flag from the show. We have the technology...
And beep/black out the lips of anyone uttering the words "General Lee"! :D
Every time I see that flag (which is very often around here), I say to myself in my exaggerated redneck voice, "But in our minds, WE won the Civil War. Harr harr."
Eh. It's a bit funnier spoken that typed.
If you haven't read the volumes of : Bruce Catton - Civil War Centennial History, and Shelby Foote - The Civil War, I will not take expressed opinions as having much information behind them. I'm am surprised at the bigotry I'm noticing here. Leave the flag alone and let the states decide.
Quote from: snyprrr on June 24, 2015, 12:53:56 PM
Treason Against Tyranny Is Patriotism
Quote from: Ken B on June 24, 2015, 01:44:19 PM
[...] some of the fetid neo confederate fever swamps of the American anarchocapitalist movement.
snypsss, are you gonna sit still for that?
Ken, I agree that Spooner´s reasoning, if applied to the last consequences, would ultimately destroy any law whatsoever. But if an idea is dangerous, it doesn´t follow that it is also untrue. I have yet to see a solid refutation of Spooner --- and not from the point of view of the social usefulness and practicability of his ideas (they have none) but from the point of view of whether they are true or false.
Quote from: Florestan on June 25, 2015, 02:15:30 AM
Ken, I agree that Spooner´s reasoning, if applied to the last consequences, would ultimately destroy any law whatsoever. But if an idea is dangerous, it doesn´t follow that it is also untrue. I have yet to see a solid refutation of Spooner --- and not from the point of view of the social usefulness and practicability of his ideas (they have none) but from the point of view of whether they are true or false.
You should really read my earlier post (which I think you may have skipped over). It addresses point I of the linked essay. Incidentally, there is little to refute as it is really an op-ed piece. In any case, continuing on...
Point II - voting is now universal, so not really worth pursuing now. In any case, he makes all sorts of assumptions and presumptions in this section about what people might have/could have meant by this. Not really very helpful.
Point III - It is highly likely that taxes were less transparent in those days. Today, there is a lot of information about where the money goes. Still, it could be better as he would probably stipulate a level of detail that is not available to all. But he seems to assumes all the worst possible uses of the money. Perhaps I should remind you this is the US and not Romania? :)
Point IV - is nonsense. There was a whole methodology to the adoption of the Constitution (done by votes in each state, which is essentially the signing, but again it is not the type of contract he is trying to make it). If it had not been accepted, there would have been riots or something. Instead, we see a generally unified country going about it's business for 70-80 years before the Civil War
Point V - blah blah blah.
Point VI - more blah blah blah...did this guy get paid by the word?
Incidentally, I am now realizing that you claimed that this guy was right in everything he said. Therefore, as per your demand that the claimant prove his point, you should prove every point of his. Good luck. We expect it by tomorrow (since we KNOW you have thoroughly read it all). :)
PS: Oh, and we won't read any more of your posts until you do! :-* >:D :laugh:
Quote from: Patrik JonssonThe Confederate battle flag has an extra layer of hateful meaning for African-Americans. It was raised by Southern states in defiance of federal integration measures in the 1950s and '60s.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0624/Dixie-fading-Confederate-symbols-under-siege-across-South.-video
Quote from: karlhenning on June 25, 2015, 05:04:16 AM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0624/Dixie-fading-Confederate-symbols-under-siege-across-South.-video
Quote from: Patrik JonssonMississippi Sens. Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran, both Republicans, on Wednesday called for the Mississippi state flag to be changed. The Mississippi flag includes the Confederate battle flag.
Interestingly, the present Mississippi state flag was only adopted in 1894; and there was a 2001 referendum, to adopt a non-Confederate design in 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mississippi
AS Karl found
QuoteThe Confederate battle flag has an extra layer of hateful meaning for African-Americans. It was raised by Southern states in defiance of federal integration measures in the 1950s and '60s.
Yes, in some states including I believe SC. That is why I said that while it is not necessarily a symbol of bass-ackwardness, in this case it really is. It was meant as an upraised middle finger to the "meddling" civil rights movement. So it's actually less a symbol of slavery than of Jim Crow. Jim Crow should have no defenders.
There seems to be a mania now to remove anything linked to the Confederacy, like Gone with the Wind. That's a foolish reaction. But this flag was adopted, as the quote explains, to send a message. Lose it.
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2015, 05:28:00 AM
There seems to be a mania now to remove anything linked to the Confederacy, like Gone with the Wind. That's a foolish reaction. But this flag was adopted, as the quote explains, to send a message. Lose it.
The broad brush would (not surprisingly) be the foolish reaction. The "Heritage, Not Hate" slogan is a tendentiously (and perhaps perniciously) broad brush, too. Statues of the Confederate Army heroes, leave them stand, that is the history. A bust of a KKK leader enshrined in the Tennessee State House, bring it down . . . install it in a Knox County Museum of Hate, maybe ;)
Neal's missing citation is indeed about Texas. Texas v White
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096)
Update. Neal, when you are finished with it you might want to hand Florestan his head back. I don't deny you earned it fair and square. Indeed you chopped him off at the knees, so there are probably other parts you can hand back.
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2015, 05:40:06 AM
Neal's missing citation is indeed about Texas. Texas v White
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096)
A most engaging read, thank you.
Particularly:
Quote from: SCUSA726 When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2015, 05:40:06 AM
Neal's missing citation is indeed about Texas. Texas v White
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096)
Update. Neal, when you are finished with it you might want to hand Florestan his head back. I don't deny you earned it fair and square. Indeed you chopped him off at the knees, so there are probably other parts you can hand back.
Thank you for the link. I just could not remember it. As to the other, at least I am learning about his nature/character! :)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 25, 2015, 04:49:53 AM
Incidentally, I am now realizing that you claimed that this guy was right in everything he said. Therefore, as per your demand that the claimant prove his point, you should prove every point of his.
He proved them himself. You might not be convinced. I am. And once again, it has nothing to do with usefulness or practicability. Government of the people, by the people, for the people is a fiction, in US no less than in Romania: socially useful and practical, but a fiction nonetheless.
Quote
PS: Oh, and we won't read any more of your posts until you do! :-* >:D :laugh:
I don´t mind, actually. ;D :P >:D
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2015, 05:40:06 AM
Neal's missing citation is indeed about Texas. Texas v White
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096)
Update. Neal, when you are finished with it you might want to hand Florestan his head back. I don't deny you earned it fair and square. Indeed you chopped him off at the knees, so there are probably other parts you can hand back.
My, my, my...Symbolic annihilation. I must have struck some really sensitive chord. ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 25, 2015, 07:01:50 AM
My, my, my...Symbolic annihilation. I must have struck some really sensitive chord. ;D ;D ;D
Are we learning about his nature/character? 8)
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 25, 2015, 06:56:08 AM
at least I am learning about his nature/character! :)
Great! What is it? I am really curious. :)
Quote from: Florestan on June 25, 2015, 07:01:50 AM
He proved them himself. You might not be convinced. I am. And once again, it has nothing to do with usefulness or practicability. Government of the people, by the people, for the people is a fiction, in US no less than in Romania: socially useful and practical, but a fiction nonetheless.
No, I am not convinced at all. I AM convinced he was verbose.
If it's a fiction, then I am curious, what is your reality?
Quote from: Florestan on June 25, 2015, 07:04:52 AM
Great! What is it? I am really curious. :)
Still learning...
Quote from: Florestan on June 25, 2015, 07:04:52 AM
Great! What is it? I am really curious. :)
My guess, and I admit it's only a guess, is that you are a Schubert fan.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 25, 2015, 08:21:53 AM
If it's a fiction, then I am curious, what is your reality?
My reality is that not a single one of the so-called representatives of the people can point to any single man or woman of that people and say "he or she personally nominated me to represent his or her interests; to him or her I am fully responsible and in case he or she believes I don´t act according to his or her interests, or because he or she simply so wishes, he or she can revoke my nomination at any time". My reality is that the so-called representatives of the people represent in fact nobody but themselves and their own interests. If you think otherwise, that´s fine with me: I am not the one to destroy other people´s dreams and illusions. ;D :P >:D
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 25, 2015, 08:22:18 AM
Still learning...
I saw that coming. :D
Quote from: Ken B on June 25, 2015, 09:21:25 AM
My guess, and I admit it's only a guess, is that you are a Schubert fan.
How did you know? :D
Without even getting into the slavery aspect, Killer Mike made a very succinct summary of the Confederate flag: "You do not fly the flags of losers over the winners' country."
Quote from: Pat B on June 25, 2015, 10:21:01 AM
Without even getting into the slavery aspect, Killer Mike made a very succinct summary of the Confederate flag: "You do not fly the flags of losers over the winners' country."
"But in our minds, WE won the Civil War."
:D
Quote from: mc ukrneal on June 24, 2015, 12:42:27 PM
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.
That´s actually quite different than "no State shall leave the Union", isn´t it?
That the matter was settled by the outcome of the Civil War is true, but had the outcome been different, the matter would have been settled differently. A typical case of might is right.
Quote from: Florestan on June 25, 2015, 10:33:07 AM
That´s actually quite different than "no State shall leave the Union", isn´t it?
It is; but the point is not really that there is no specific prohibition spelled out in the Constitution.
I quoted earlier:
Quote from: SCOTUSWhen, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.
The discussion earlier in the ruling included the following:
Quote from: SCOTUSThe Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
States are not admitted to the Union with a pre-nup "but the State reserves the right to drop out, if e.g. it finds the abolition of slavery to be inconvenient."
Quote from: karlhenning on June 25, 2015, 10:43:35 AM
It is; but the point is not really that there is no specific prohibition spelled out in the Constitution.
I quoted earlier:
The discussion earlier in the ruling included the following:
States are not admitted to the Union with a pre-nup "but the State reserves the right to drop out, if e.g. it finds the abolition of slavery to be inconvenient."
Think of the former Yugoslavia: another federal state with no drop out rights. When Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina declared their independence, the Yugoslavian constitution and the Yugoslavian Union itself ceased to exist by that very fact. Had the Serbians been able to win the ensuing wars, the situation would have been absolutely similar to that of the restored USA post-Civil War: Slovenia, Croatia and BH returned forcibly to the Union and the theory accepted that they had no right to independence to begin with, and must forever, nilly-willy remain in Yugoslavia. The outcome was different, though, because the seccessionists eventually won the wars, and thus nobody today (except perhaps some Serbians) denies that they had the right to secede, or label them as rebelious traitors. Might is right worked in this case as well, only in the opposite direction.
While we're on the topic let me plug my favourite book on American history.
Arguing About Slavery William Lee Miller
Every time a politician says: "The American people are intelligent people...", I know they will finish the sentence by trying to prove that we are stupid.
I thought this was very good.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-confederacys-ugly-history-cannot-be-painted-over/2015/06/26/f4443a8e-1c28-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-confederacys-ugly-history-cannot-be-painted-over/2015/06/26/f4443a8e-1c28-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1)
As a Canadian I have always been struck by this coddling of the confederacy. And it often seemed to me that I learned more about it in high school than did most Americans. Anyone who still doubts the war was about slavery should read the short book Scorpion's Sting by Oakes. (Or some of the original documents of the era.)
This is the thread for flag related stuff I guess.
https://mobile.twitter.com/gaywonk/status/614879774994001920 (https://mobile.twitter.com/gaywonk/status/614879774994001920)
Quote from: MN Dave :) on June 24, 2015, 12:05:14 PMWe can remove the flag from the show. We have the technology...
Or update it!
(http://i59.tinypic.com/27zxhyr.jpg)
Those boys are just good friends, I tells ya.
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2015/bikini%20flag.jpg)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 01, 2015, 04:55:30 AM
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2015/bikini%20flag.jpg)
Thread winner!
The South Carolina Senate voted 36-3 to remove the Confederate flag from flying in front of the State House. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0707/SC-Senate-votes-to-remove-Confederate-flag.-Is-support-for-the-flag-vanishing)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 01, 2015, 04:55:30 AM
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/feb2015/bikini%20flag.jpg)
I can hardly wait a similar decision in her case. ;D ;D ;D
EDIT: Seriously now, it´s pretty obvious that the wounds of the US Civil War are still bleeding and far from being cured, maybe more so than those of the Spanish Civil War...
Quote from: karlhenning on July 07, 2015, 08:28:45 AM
The South Carolina Senate voted 36-3 to remove the Confederate flag from flying in front of the State House. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0707/SC-Senate-votes-to-remove-Confederate-flag.-Is-support-for-the-flag-vanishing)
Yes. GOP controlled house. Flag law was signed by Fritz Hollings.