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.
Well, to be blunt about it, your "original point" makes no sense. LOL
And neither do the conclusions you reach. In fact, there are so silly and outlandish as to not really be worth a reply.
If I am going to debate/discuss this topic, I prefer to do it with -- agree or disagree -- those who at least have a workable knowlege of history.
Of course you believe that my original point makes no sense; someone who happens to have a views such as yours regarding this issue could not possibly address my points without admitting that truth.
The truth is that people who fly the Confederate flag consider themselves "rebels". These types of people "rebel" against being forced to accept ALL people as equals. Absolutely none of your arguments for the flag have addrressed this directly.
I wish that the defenders of the Confederate flag would simply state their truths: they are racists, they believe in the Confederacy because they would like the right to legally treat other humans with less dignity, they choose to fly the flag because they know that it is a symbol of intimidation used to keep people in their 'place'
You're right; you are no legal scholar. The question could have easily been placed before the Court, which is the Constitutional arbiter of disputes that involve states. You also appear not to know what moot means.
But apparently, going by what you state, your credentials are even more lacking. I may "appear" to not know...but you obviously don't.
In the SCOTUS realm, a "moot" case means one which, while it might be arguable or debatable in other aspects, does not involve a party with standing to present, nor an issue of actual present existence.
So, how could the Southern states present a case for secession before they had actually seceded? And after they DID, what would be the point?
Quote:
Davis may have want to negotiate a separation, but he didn't represent a party with legal standing. Two routes exist -- legal or by force of arms. The South chose force of arms. It was a foolish choice.
No, there was nothing to "negotiate" by way of seperation. The Southern states chose, by proper legislative means, the same course as did their Revolutionary War ancestors. Independence. On the principle that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed (what part of that is so difficult to understand?).
What Davis wanted to negotiate was how best the CSA and USA (again, northern states which kept the name by default) could best get along and co-exist.
There was nothing "illegal" about secession. And it was the North who chose force of arms to settle a dispute which needed not to have ever been one.
Quote:
You cannot withdraw from most contract unilaterally. Otherwise it wouldn't be a contract. There were no provisions in the contract that provided for secession.
You are grasping at straws. The contract between the seperate and soverign states which formed the original Union (note how such were recognized by the British as such?) was voluntary. There was nothing within to specify the length of such. Do you honestly believe that the Union would have ever been formed to begin with if each of the original states believed they would be giving up a right they had just excercised? (that is, "secession" from England). This makes no sense at all..
And also, to repeat once again: All powers not specifically delegated to the federal government belonged to the states and people via the 9th and 10th amendments. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited secession, therefore the "right" (if it can be called such...as such a right is intrinsic to a free people, anyway) existed by default if nothing else.
Quote:
It clearly did.
You keep saying this, but never bother to say where in the Constitution the federal government was authorized with the power to forcibly prevent a member state from peaceably leaving the Union.
Quote:
Where there is no provision, or even if there had been, it's a decision for the Supreme Court not individual states.
The Supreme Court aspect has already been covered.
Quote:
It's not a personal opinion. It's a statement by the Vice President of the Confederacy.
Oh man. I almost give up. You are becoming a broken record here. Go back and read again about the historical framework. You don't have to agree, of course, but at least, quit playing the same song over and over again.
On a final note for now? What I really think is that you are a person so self-absorbed and convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority that for someone to challenge something contrary to your own personal outlook and opinions is an almost unbearable personal affront. You seem to consider yourself one of the "annointed" and that, by definition, any who disagrees with you must be either in denial, ignorant, hateful, racist, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Perhaps living in Washington D.C. all these years is the reason. Who knows...?
Of course you believe that my original point makes no sense; someone who happens to have a views such as yours regarding this issue could not possibly address my points without admitting that truth.
The truth is that people who fly the Confederate flag consider themselves "rebels". These types of people "rebel" against being forced to accept ALL people as equals. Absolutely none of your arguments for the flag have addrressed this directly.
I wish that the defenders of the Confederate flag would simply state their truths: they are racists, they believe in the Confederacy because they would like the right to legally treat other humans with less dignity, they choose to fly the flag because they know that it is a symbol of intimidation used to keep people in their 'place'
LOL Ok. Ok. You win. I lose. Your articulate logic and case leaves me no choice but to surrender unconditionally.
But apparently, going by what you state, your credentials are even more lacking. I may "appear" to not know...but you obviously don't.
In the SCOTUS realm, a "moot" case means one which, while it might be arguable or debatable in other aspects, does not involve a party with standing to present, nor an issue of actual present existence.
Actually that isn't what moot mean. It mean an issue which has already been decided by forces beyond the power of the court to affect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
So, how could the Southern states present a case for secession before they had actually seceded? And after they DID, what would be the point?
Sue to abolish of the union. That is the way you break any contractual relationship from marriage to partnerships. Since it involves a state, it automatically goes to the SC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
No, there was nothing to "negotiate" by way of seperation. The Southern states chose, by proper legislative means, the same course as did their Revolutionary War ancestors. Independence. On the principle that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed (what part of that is so difficult to understand?).
The revolution won by force of arms. Had force of arms failed the revolution would fail. There was nothing "legal" about it. As there was nothing legal about secession. I've already pointed this out numerous times. Are you slow?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
What Davis wanted to negotiate was how best the CSA and USA (again, northern states which kept the name by default) could best get along and co-exist.
By obeying the law like good little states of the United States of America. Davis however was the one to resort to violence. Dumb move. Lincoln was very reluctant to use force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
There was nothing "illegal" about secession. And it was the North who chose force of arms to settle a dispute which needed not to have ever been one.
Interesting. Want to try it again? You are slow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
You are grasping at straws. The contract between the seperate and soverign states which formed the original Union (note how such were recognized by the British as such?) was voluntary. There was nothing within to specify the length of such. Do you honestly believe that the Union would have ever been formed to begin with if each of the original states believed they would be giving up a right they had just excercised? (that is, "secession" from England). This makes no sense at all..
The original union was voluntary but permanent, as demonstrated by the results of the Civil War. You're looking really slow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
And also, to repeat once again: All powers not specifically delegated to the federal government belonged to the states and people via the 9th and 10th amendments. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited secession, therefore the "right" (if it can be called such...as such a right is intrinsic to a free people, anyway) existed by default if nothing else.
Now you behaving like you haven't got two brain cells to rub together. The SC is the arbiter of such question not you and not the backward bubbas in the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
You keep saying this, but never bother to say where in the Constitution the federal government was authorized with the power to forcibly prevent a member state from peaceably leaving the Union.
They didn't try to leave peacefully, they attacked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
The Supreme Court aspect has already been covered.
Certainly has. It's was the South's only concievable route out of the Union, but being dumber than a bag of hammers, the South decided to fight with a groups that could and did wipe the floor with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Oh man. I almost give up. You are becoming a broken record here. Go back and read again about the historical framework. You don't have to agree, of course, but at least, quit playing the same song over and over again.
On a final note for now? What I really think is that you are a person so self-absorbed and convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority that for someone to challenge something contrary to your own personal outlook and opinions is an almost unbearable personal affront. You seem to consider yourself one of the "annointed" and that, by definition, any who disagrees with you must be either in denial, ignorant, hateful, racist, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
It's come about from talking with you. When someone actually puts forward a well reasoned argument I am able not to be so condecending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Perhaps living in Washington D.C. all these years is the reason. Who knows...?
No, people in Washington generally are able to reason, but maybe you're right. I am used to that, and I don't see much of it here.
Actually that isn't what moot mean. It mean an issue which has already been decided by forces beyond the power of the court to affect.
No, it doesn't, in this particular realm...although it may in another:
1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise.
2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire.
tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots
1.
a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate.
b. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1.
2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court.
adj.
1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2.
a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
mootness n.
Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant.
Thus, cutting thru all this legal gobbledeegook, since the the State of South Carolina had not yet seceded, there was no case to put before the SCOTUS. And again, it would not have made any difference, anyway. The right of a people to govern themselves is NOT one in which nine unelected people can rule on. If it were, then hell, lets just declare the Supreme Court the supreme and grand judges, void of any other historical and constitutional checks...
Quote:
Sue to abolish of the union. That is the way you break any contractual relationship from marriage to partnerships. Since it involves a state, it automatically goes to the SC.
Your ability to spin in circles amazes me. For one thing, marriage and other partnerships between individual usually specifically state the terms under which one or other of the parties may get out of it.
The Constitution of the United States (largely written by Southern men...I love to keep repeating that historical fact) was a compact between soverign states. Hardly the same thing...and to compare it to a contract between two neighbors or whatever cheapens it to the nth degree.
You never answer this solid question though. Do you really believe that the 13 colonies, later recognized as soverign and independent states, would have formed the Union at all if they thought none of them could get out of it under any circumstances? That is, they would have given up a right they had just excercised when they seceded from England?
This makes no sense whatsover, and is supported by nothing I can think of in historical records, the Federalist Papers, or any memoir of any of the Founding Fathers....
Quote:
The revolution won by force of arms. Had force of arms failed the revolution would fail. There was nothing "legal" about it. As there was nothing legal about secession. I've already pointed this out numerous times. Are you slow?
*yawns* OK. So "Might makes Right" You are hardly the first to appeal to this venue of vindication. Lots of dictators in history have done the same...
Quote:
Interesting. Want to try it again? You are slow.
The original union was voluntary but permanent, as demonstrated by the results of the Civil War. You're looking really slow.
Now you behaving like you haven't got two brain cells to rub together. The SC is the arbiter of such question not you and not the backward bubbas in the South.
They didn't try to leave peacefully, they attacked.
Certainly has. It's was the South's only concievable route out of the Union, but being dumber than a bag of hammers, the South decided to fight with a groups that could and did wipe the floor with them.
It's come about from talking with you. When someone actually puts forward a well reasoned argument I am able not to be so condecending.
No, people in Washington generally are able to reason, but maybe you're right. I am used to that, and I don't see much of it here.
ROFLMAO Really, the only part of this yada yada yada, etc, etc, etc. diatribe and inane rant above I am going to address is the one bolded.
Condecending? Podner, let me clue you in on something. Yes, you are "condecending". However, your condension lacks any type of moral or intellectual authority. That is to say, no one feels shunned by it. Rather, it reminds of someone in a nut house with delusions of grandeur.
Anyway, once again, your post only goes to prove you are so self-absorbed and convinced of your own righteousness, you simply can't deal with facts contrary. Oh well, as it is, this is getting dangerously close to being a flame war, and you are not worth a "warning" by moderators to cease and desist.
As it is? I am perfectly content to leave our exchanges and points made to the judgement of others as to judge and decide who made the better and more civil and sensible case.
You can have the last word, I reckon. I done put in mine.
Of course you believe that my original point makes no sense; someone who happens to have a views such as yours regarding this issue could not possibly address my points without admitting that truth.
The truth is that people who fly the Confederate flag consider themselves "rebels". These types of people "rebel" against being forced to accept ALL people as equals. Absolutely none of your arguments for the flag have addrressed this directly.
I wish that the defenders of the Confederate flag would simply state their truths: they are racists, they believe in the Confederacy because they would like the right to legally treat other humans with less dignity, they choose to fly the flag because they know that it is a symbol of intimidation used to keep people in their 'place'
,perhaps in a certain way I may consider myself a "rebel". As to being forced to accept ALL people as equals, well, I don't particularly like to be FORCED to do anything. As to whether I'm a racist for defending the flying of Confederate flags, fine, think what you will. There are plenty of other symbols out there that are equally offensive to other groups of people that don't get picked on near as much. Let me see, that would include the X, the treasonous "Peace Sign",the raised "Power to the People" fist, the Maltese cross,the green and white striped "peace flag",people who deem it fit to fly other national flags OVER Ol' glory in OUR country, just to name a few.
The primary cause of The War for Southern Independence was "taxation without representation." The War for Southern Independence was caused by many factors but the primary cause was the thirst for money and power by Lincoln and his Northern Industrialist supporters.The Confederate Battle Flag represents all Southern, and even Northern, Confederates regardless of race or religion and is the symbol of less government, less taxes, and the right of the people to govern themselves. It is flown in memory and honor of our Confederate ancestors and veterans who willingly shed their blood for Southern independence.Since the Southerners had escaped the tax by withdrawing from the Union, the only way the North could collect this oppressive tax was to invade the Confederate States and force them at gunpoint back into the Union. It was to collect this import tax to satisfy his Northern industrialist supporters that Abraham Lincoln invaded our South. Slavery was not the issue. Lincoln's war cost the lives of 600,000 Americans. The truth about the Confederate Flag is that it has nothing to do with racism or hate. The Civil War was not fought over slavery or racism.
Of course you believe that my original point makes no sense; someone who happens to have a views such as yours regarding this issue could not possibly address my points without admitting that truth.
The truth is that people who fly the Confederate flag consider themselves "rebels". These types of people "rebel" against being forced to accept ALL people as equals. Absolutely none of your arguments for the flag have addrressed this directly.
I wish that the defenders of the Confederate flag would simply state their truths: they are racists, they believe in the Confederacy because they would like the right to legally treat other humans with less dignity, they choose to fly the flag because they know that it is a symbol of intimidation used to keep people in their 'place'
Another generalization. For many, other people read entirely tooooo much into what the Confederate flag means to them.
Did you ever watch the Dukes of Hazzard? Remember the Confederate Flag on the car? Did you find the Dukes of Hazzard to be racist?
To many, especially youth, the Confederate flag means nothing more than showing their pride in being southern country boys - hunting, riding ATVs, listening to country music, etc. It has NOTHING to do with identifying with racism.
Another generalization. For many, other people read entirely tooooo much into what the Confederate flag means to them.
Did you ever watch the Dukes of Hazzard? Remember the Confederate Flag on the car? Did you find the Dukes of Hazzard to be racist?
To many, especially youth, the Confederate flag means nothing more than showing their pride in being southern country boys - hunting, riding ATVs, listening to country music, etc. It has NOTHING to do with identifying with racism.
A****ingmen!
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.
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.
,perhaps in a certain way I may consider myself a "rebel". As to being forced to accept ALL people as equals, well, I don't particularly like to be FORCED to do anything. As to whether I'm a racist for defending the flying of Confederate flags, fine, think what you will. There are plenty of other symbols out there that are equally offensive to other groups of people that don't get picked on near as much. Let me see
, that would include the X, the treasonous "Peace Sign",the raised "Power to the People" fist, the Maltese cross,the green and white striped "peace flag",people who deem it fit to fly other national flags OVER Ol' glory in OUR country, just to name a few.
