U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2014, 07:15 AM
 
3,145 posts, read 3,133,451 times
Reputation: 1400

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AddaVisser View Post
To the victor goes the spoils. We live in the United States of America thus the American flag gets flown.
This is true and the American Flag is flown. However, part of what that American flag represents is freedom of speech and, while reduced due to the war, states rights. The state has the right to fly whatever flag it chooses on its grounds. In this case it is a memorial.

You can claim it's treason, but legally it wasn't. States were considered sovereign and had joined the union willingly ratifying the constitution as States... not citizens. The Constitution does not have an indissoluble clause, and didn't have the power to coerce another States into joining or remaining with the union (James Madison). Lincoln violated constitutional safeguards against coercion by the federal government in 1861 when he insisted the States had not left the Union and used troops to invade the States to force them to remain. He did this because he didn't have Congress' declaration of war which would have recognized the Southern states as a separate entity thus putting them outside the legal authority of the Constitution. Even today it is a debated concept of the legality of state succession (Scalia based on Texas v White 1869). The Civil War established the precedence by force that a State once joined could not leave the Union. Up until then it was an open option.

The NCAA should concern itself with college sports and stay out of political battles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2014, 08:06 PM
 
419 posts, read 401,788 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by IsNull View Post
You can claim it's treason, but legally it wasn't. States were considered sovereign and had joined the union willingly ratifying the constitution as States... not citizens. The Constitution does not have an indissoluble clause, and didn't have the power to coerce another States into joining or remaining with the union (James Madison). Lincoln violated constitutional safeguards against coercion by the federal government in 1861 when he insisted the States had not left the Union and used troops to invade the States to force them to remain. He did this because he didn't have Congress' declaration of war which would have recognized the Southern states as a separate entity thus putting them outside the legal authority of the Constitution. Even today it is a debated concept of the legality of state succession (Scalia based on Texas v White 1869). The Civil War established the precedence by force that a State once joined could not leave the Union. Up until then it was an open option.
The states adopted the Constitution to replace The Articles of Confederacy, they bound themselves into a union which was indissoluble unless intolerable cruelty and oppression could be demonstrated. Since the southern states controlled Congress, this criterion was not met. The southern states reacted by secession to protect and expand chattel slavery. They seceded for economic interests, and not in reaction to
oppression.

According to Article 3 of the Constitution, they very much committed treason against the United States.

“Article 3, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

And that is not all. They tried to avoid the treason charge by violating Article 1, Section 10:

“Article 1, Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emits Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

“No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

“No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

They pretty much violated the entirety of this section, particularly in declaring secession and forming a Confederacy

They also violated Article 4, Section 4.

“Article 4, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

They denied the results of a fair and honest national; election.

And they pretty much trashed Article 6, which says in part:

“Article 6, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”


Also consider hundreds of U.S. soldiers were taken prisoner in Texas during the state militia’s capture of 23 U.S. forts out there–they held many of these men into 1863. The Georgia militia’s capture of Federal Fort Pulaski—before Georgia had even organized a convention to consider seceding from the Union. All of this occurred months before the rebel attack on Ft. Sumter and Lincoln’s call for volunteers to suppress the rebellion.

To say these hostile acts, in addition to the Confederate seizure of numerous Federal arsenals and posts, including the U.S. Mint in New Orleans, is not treasonous in every sense of the legal definition is just untrue.

Quote:
The NCAA should concern itself with college sports and stay out of political battles.
Actually the NCAA has the right to maintain, develop or discontinue their policies as it sees fit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 06:23 AM
 
Location: Charleston, SC
2,901 posts, read 3,061,885 times
Reputation: 2047
It doesn't matter! The Lady gamecocks have won again on the west coast and are going to the Sweet 16 ! on the west coast again, they play North Carolina! Keep rollin Lady Gamecocks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 08:42 AM
 
3,145 posts, read 3,133,451 times
Reputation: 1400
Addavisser,

Quote:
Originally Posted by AddaVisser View Post
The states adopted the Constitution to replace The Articles of Confederacy, they bound themselves into a union which was indissoluble unless intolerable cruelty and oppression could be demonstrated.
There is nothing that addresses indissolubility and there is no requirement for cruelty or oppression. The original Articles of Confederation used the term 'perpetual', however that language never made it into the Constitution.

All of the things you pointed out wouldn't have applied once the State succeeded. Doing something against the constitution isn't treason, or our own gov would be considered treasonous every time the court found a law (and actions taken under that law) as unconstitutional.

In 1861 it wasn't illegal to succeed. The ruling by the Supreme Court didn't occur until 1869. To be illegal you need:

1. A law that explicitly prohibits the action.
2. A previous Supreme Court ruling prohibiting the action.
3. "Clear text" within the Constitution (no grey area) - Clear text example of being 35 to be President.

As of 1861 the Constitutional text was considered a grey area on this subject thus the reason for the court's interpretation in 1869.

Had the South won the war I'm afraid the interpretation that set precedence would have been different than today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 04:29 PM
 
419 posts, read 401,788 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by IsNull View Post
Doing something against the constitution isn't treason, or our own gov would be considered treasonous every time the court found a law (and actions taken under that law) as unconstitutional.
I didn't make that claim. We're not talking about vague "somethings" or anything the court found unconstitutional but very specific things written out in the constitution as treasonous.

Again they According to Article 3 of the Constitution, they very much committed treason against the United States.

“Article 3, Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
[/quote]



To say the hostile acts committed by Southern states, in addition to the Confederate seizure of numerous Federal arsenals and posts, including the U.S. Mint in New Orleans, were not treasonous in every sense of the legal definition is just false.

Quote:
In 1861 it wasn't illegal to succeed. The ruling by the Supreme Court didn't occur until 1869. To be illegal you need:
You do realize that the ruling didn't imply that it was legal before 1869. In theory, Supreme Court rulings do not create new law; only Congress can do that. The substance of the ruling was that secession was unconstitutional all along.


The US Supreme Court ruled that the Texas secession of 1861 was unconstitutional, and had never been valid. The ruling was based on the US Constitution (not on any amendments ratified after 1861). According to the ruling, secession was illegal both at the time of the ruling (1869) and at the time Texas attempted to secede (1861), and in fact at any time after Texas joined the union in 1845.

The actual substance of the case involved some US bonds that were held by the State of Texas and were sold by the Confederate state legislature. The court resolved the issue by ruling that the action of the Confederate state legislature was invalid, and the bonds were still owned by the State of Texas.

The Constitution defines the procedure for admitting new states. It defines no such procedure for secession, which if it were legal would require various actions by the Federal government, such as removing Senators and Representatives. Since the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to accept secessions, it could be argued that it has no such authority, and therefore states cannot legally secede.

The authors of the Constitution could easily have established a procedure for secession if they had wanted to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 04:34 PM
 
1,912 posts, read 2,010,704 times
Reputation: 869
Just stop being rednecks and worshiping the rebel flag, jeez.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 08:23 AM
 
3,145 posts, read 3,133,451 times
Reputation: 1400
Quote:
Originally Posted by CD2013 View Post
Just stop being rednecks and worshiping the rebel flag, jeez.
How very accepting of other people's views.

Addaviser,

The point is (and has been made by many historians and judges) that up until the Civil War the idea of State sovierenty and the ability to leave the Union was considered a 'grey' area of the Constitution. It was wildly debated by the those of the time. There was no concrete answer as there was no law and the question had not been heard by the Supreme Court. Therefore it had no precedence. As point out by Scalia, the Civil War itself decided that question. The court's ruling of 1869 was able to be made because of the result of the war.

A court's ruling doesn't create law, but it can define interpretation and set it into precedence. How the court interprets law becomes the true law of the land.

You said that because Congress can only bring willing new States into the Union was the exact argument that States had the ability to leave the Union because of their own sovereignty. Remember, those powers not directly given are reserved for the States. These are the grey areas...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Sumter, SC
1,833 posts, read 2,073,327 times
Reputation: 1302
Quote:
Originally Posted by CD2013 View Post
Just stop being rednecks and worshiping the rebel flag, jeez.
1.) I'm not a redneck.
2.) I'm not even a native of the south.
3.) It's not worship.
4.) The flag itself is not a symbol of hate. (The KKK marches with an Amercian flag. Does that make our flag a symbol of hate?)
5.) It's a part of history and especially the history of the south.
6.) It's a part of what made the south what it is today.
7.) (Most importantly) It is being flown at a monument for Confederate dead. As already discussed ad nauesam, would it be a good idea to move the monument to a less conspicious spot on the grounds of the State House? I think so. But there currently is no movement I am aware of to make an attempt to do this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 03:25 PM
 
419 posts, read 401,788 times
Reputation: 213
IsNull, the point is treason was committed when they violated Article 3, Section 3. Article 1, Section 10. Article 4, Section 4. and Article 6 of the Constitution, addition to the seizure of numerous Federal arsenals and posts, including the U.S. Mint in New Orleans.

Please explain how violating those articles of the Constitution which explicitly lay out what is treason is in fact not treason? You're right there was a gray area for secession however there was no gray area for what constituted treason. You seem to think I'm using treason and secession interchangeably. If that's the case then I want you to know I'm not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2014, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Irmo, SC
1,547 posts, read 1,431,771 times
Reputation: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iam4USC View Post
1.) I'm not a redneck.
2.) I'm not even a native of the south.
3.) It's not worship.
4.) The flag itself is not a symbol of hate. (The KKK marches with an Amercian flag. Does that make our flag a symbol of hate?)
5.) It's a part of history and especially the history of the south.
6.) It's a part of what made the south what it is today.
7.) (Most importantly) It is being flown at a monument for Confederate dead. As already discussed ad nauesam, would it be a good idea to move the monument to a less conspicious spot on the grounds of the State House? I think so. But there currently is no movement I am aware of to make an attempt to do this.
While I was at USC there was a class I took called, Nations and Nationalism. Halfway through the course my professor, Dr. Doyle, spoke about the confederate flag and presented it to us as being a symbol of secession and the stereotypical south vs. north, idea. He said the confederate flag is flown in southern Italy, as a symbol of Giuseppe Garibaldi's opposition to the North. The confederate flag was unofficially undertaken as a symbol of this opposition and the south vs. north idea. Not perceived as slavery overseas so much, but that won't change the notion of some that think it's a symbol of slavery. The mind often associates objects with events and for some reason, the confederate flag is associated with slavery. Not saying it's right or wrong, but that's probably just the psychology of it all. Just thought I'd jump in and throw this in here, as an interesting aside... But as for me, I think eventually the flag will come down. I'm fine with it being up, but it doesn't bother me much if it came down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top