Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
View Poll Results: How do you feel about the confederate flag?
I'm from the North and it is a symbol of hate and racism 54 21.77%
I'm from the North and it is a symbol of southern pride and heritage 57 22.98%
I'm from the South and it is a symbol of hate and racism 30 12.10%
I'm from the South and it is a symbol of our pride and heritage 53 21.37%
I'm from neither the North or the South and it is a symbol of hate and racism 26 10.48%
I'm from neither the North or the South and it is a symbol of southern pride and heritage 28 11.29%
Voters: 248. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-31-2013, 10:47 PM
 
57,022 posts, read 35,003,266 times
Reputation: 18824

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metro Matt View Post
Not like we can erase our US history.

I don't necessarily associate it so much with racism as I do a symbolic thing. There were many Blacks who fought in the Southern Army that were treated with utmost respect by their generals.
Your last sentence is a serious stretch. Actually, I'm being kind...it's a fantasy.

Blacks caught hell moreso in the South than any other region before and after the war. What kind of "utmost respect" is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-31-2013, 10:58 PM
 
Location: California
11,466 posts, read 19,292,001 times
Reputation: 12712
Default What is your view towards the Confederate flag?

It's a piece of colored cloth, it's meaning is only what a person makes of it, pride or hate just as with any flag.
I think it looks cool but i don't put any meaning to flags.

I'll explain how I feel, if I were to put a negative meaning to this flag because of slavery or whatever I would also have to put a negative meaning to the stars and stripes do to the terrible things done while it's flown an example being the Native Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 02:37 AM
 
567 posts, read 1,114,586 times
Reputation: 469
Mixed feelings.

I'm from the Los Angeleez area. Rebel flags weren't a common sight but they weren't uncommon either. Whenever I saw one on a t-shirt or on a pickup truck, the following things would go through my mind:

1. This guy's a racist and I need to watch out.

2. Or he's just into Skynyrd and bass fishing and stuff like that, and likes non-whites just fine.

Half the time it was some weird combination of the two. "Yeah, Mexicans are cool, I'm only racist against [N-words] and g***ks." Hell, I knew guys who had Arab friends who had it out for blacks and Asians. Southern California can be a strange, strange place.

In short, it's possible to be an okay guy and sport a rebel flag. But if you see somebody with one, there's a 50% chance he's an A-hole. It's basically a coin flip.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 02:43 AM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,372,962 times
Reputation: 390
Default What is your view towards the Confederate flag?

It is a symbol of defiance.

Though defying England, the American flag is not a symbol of defiance.

Didn't the South have anything positive to say about itself?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 08:16 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,338,463 times
Reputation: 18520
Look at the polling above and it is very telling.

If you are not from the South, you have a much more polarizing view. The confusion is astounding.
If you are from the South, you totally understand in a majority what the flag represents.

That is why a Rebel flag in Philly, is much different than a Stars & Bars, flying high in Birmingham.

The Yankee propaganda of the civil war, still floats the farther north you travel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 08:21 AM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,908,614 times
Reputation: 2385
It was the catalyst for passage of the 14th amendment, the best use of a rag ever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 11:46 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,338,463 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
It was the catalyst for passage of the 14th amendment, the best use of a rag ever.

What a sham and a grab of power, never given.


The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional The purported 14th Amendment to the United States is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I, Section 7.
3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the states then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union. Article V. I. The Unconstitutional Congress The U.S. Constitution provides:
Article I, Section 3, ``The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State ...''
Article V provides: ``No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.''
The fact that 23 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U. S. Senate, in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures:
The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:
``The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of the three fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ...''
``That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretense that there were no such states in the Union; but, finding that two thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two thirds of the said houses.''
1. The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the U.S. Congress.
2 The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:
``The Amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as Article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This Article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity.''
3 The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows:
'The Constitution authorized two thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States were excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution.''
4 {H7163} The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866, protested as follows:
``Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first Article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.
``This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress, to act upon the question, `Shall these amendments be proposed?' Every other excluded State had the same right. ``The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied. Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they would never have been proposed to the States. Two thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity, and patriotism of eleven co- equal States''.
5. The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866, protested as follows:
``Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and more startling demands may or may not be required by the predominant party previous to allowing the ten States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them.
6. The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866, protested as follows:
``Eleven of the Southern States, including South Carolina, are deprived of their representation in Congress. Although their Senators and Representatives have been duly elected and have presented themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have, in most instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have been referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report on the subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional functions, and decide either upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these selected by the States and people to represent us. Some of the Senators and Representatives from the Southern States were prepared to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept out of the seats to which they were entitled under the Constitution and laws.
``Hence this amendment has not been proposed by `two thirds of both Houses' of a legally constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification.''
7 The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution of December 6, 1866, as follows:
``The Federal Constitution declares, in substance, that Congress shall consist of a House of Representative, composed of members apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their population and of a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And in the Article which concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that `no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.' The Contemplated Amendment was not proposed to the States by a Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding States were deprived of representation both in the Senate and House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on the important question of proposing the Amendment. Had they been allowed to give their votes, the proposition would doubtless have failed to command the required two thirds majority.
...
If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of proposing it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of the Committee, to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence, could arrive at a different conclusion.''
8 II. Joint Resolution Ineffective
Article I, Section 7 provides that not only every bill which have been passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States Congress, but that:
``Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.'' The Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment 9 was never presented to the President of the United States for his approval, as President Andrew Johnson stated in his message on June 22, 1866. 10 Therefore the Joint Resolution did not take effect.
III. Proposed Amendment never Ratified by Three Fourths of the States
1. Pretermitting the ineffectiveness of said resolution, as above, fifteen (15) States out of the then thirty seven (37) States of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of its submission to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866, and March 24, 1868, thereby further nullifying said resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally required three fourths of such States, as shown by the rejections thereof by the Legislatures of the following States:
Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866. 11
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866. 12
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866. 13
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866. 14
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866. 15
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866. 16
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866. 17
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867. 18
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867. 19
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867. 20
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867. 21
Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867. 22
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867. 23
Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868. 24
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868. 25

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 08:09 PM
 
72,798 posts, read 62,114,553 times
Reputation: 21758
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
What a sham and a grab of power, never given.


The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional The purported 14th Amendment to the United States is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress. Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I, Section 7.
3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the states then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union. Article V. I. The Unconstitutional Congress The U.S. Constitution provides:
Article I, Section 3, ``The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State ...''
Article V provides: ``No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.''
The fact that 23 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U. S. Senate, in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures:
The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:
``The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of the three fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ...''
``That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretense that there were no such states in the Union; but, finding that two thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two thirds of the said houses.''
1. The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the U.S. Congress.
2 The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:
``The Amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as Article XIV is presented to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This Article V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As representatives from nearly one third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity.''
3 The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows:
'The Constitution authorized two thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and, as eleven States were excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the Constitution.''
4 {H7163} The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866, protested as follows:
``Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth paragraph, second section, first Article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.
``This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution which authorizes two thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress, to act upon the question, `Shall these amendments be proposed?' Every other excluded State had the same right. ``The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied. Had these amendments been submitted to a constitutional Congress, they would never have been proposed to the States. Two thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the intellect, integrity, and patriotism of eleven co- equal States''.
5. The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866, protested as follows:
``Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and more startling demands may or may not be required by the predominant party previous to allowing the ten States now unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation is guaranteed by the Constitution of this country and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them.
6. The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866, protested as follows:
``Eleven of the Southern States, including South Carolina, are deprived of their representation in Congress. Although their Senators and Representatives have been duly elected and have presented themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have, in most instances, been laid upon the table without being read, or have been referred to a committee, who have failed to make any report on the subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional functions, and decide either upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these selected by the States and people to represent us. Some of the Senators and Representatives from the Southern States were prepared to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently ignored, and kept out of the seats to which they were entitled under the Constitution and laws.
``Hence this amendment has not been proposed by `two thirds of both Houses' of a legally constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for ratification.''
7 The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution of December 6, 1866, as follows:
``The Federal Constitution declares, in substance, that Congress shall consist of a House of Representative, composed of members apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their population and of a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And in the Article which concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that `no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.' The Contemplated Amendment was not proposed to the States by a Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding States were deprived of representation both in the Senate and House, although they all, except the State of Texas, had Senators and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under the Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on the important question of proposing the Amendment. Had they been allowed to give their votes, the proposition would doubtless have failed to command the required two thirds majority.
...
If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of the Amendment, they were equally necessary on the question of proposing it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of the Committee, to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence, could arrive at a different conclusion.''
8 II. Joint Resolution Ineffective
Article I, Section 7 provides that not only every bill which have been passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States Congress, but that:
``Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.'' The Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment 9 was never presented to the President of the United States for his approval, as President Andrew Johnson stated in his message on June 22, 1866. 10 Therefore the Joint Resolution did not take effect.
III. Proposed Amendment never Ratified by Three Fourths of the States
1. Pretermitting the ineffectiveness of said resolution, as above, fifteen (15) States out of the then thirty seven (37) States of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of its submission to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866, and March 24, 1868, thereby further nullifying said resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally required three fourths of such States, as shown by the rejections thereof by the Legislatures of the following States:
Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866. 11
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866. 12
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866. 13
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866. 14
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866. 15
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866. 16
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866. 17
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867. 18
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867. 19
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867. 20
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867. 21
Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867. 22
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867. 23
Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868. 24
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868. 25

I disagree with you. I'm grateful for the 14th amendment. It made sure that I would be a citizen of this nation, the USA. Citizen cannot be denied based on race. As a Black man, that is one amendment I am grateful for. I was born and raised in the USA, this is my country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2013, 08:31 PM
 
72,798 posts, read 62,114,553 times
Reputation: 21758
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Look at the polling above and it is very telling.

If you are not from the South, you have a much more polarizing view. The confusion is astounding.
If you are from the South, you totally understand in a majority what the flag represents.

That is why a Rebel flag in Philly, is much different than a Stars & Bars, flying high in Birmingham.

The Yankee propaganda of the civil war, still floats the farther north you travel.
There is one factor you are not considering. Ethnicity. 56 percent of the nation's Black population lives in the South. My mother is Black and she is from the South. She doesn't like the Confederate flag. Living in Georgia since the 1990s, I have only met one Black person who liked the Confederate flag. Most Black people I met, the Confederate flag represented oppression to them. I'm going based on my own personal experiences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2013, 07:14 AM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,625,215 times
Reputation: 9314
It right up there with the American flag. It represents people who had the guts to fight a tyrannical government and for what they believed, just like George Washington.
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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top