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)
 
Old 02-05-2009, 08:14 AM
 
416 posts, read 712,910 times
Reputation: 111

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
The Tenth Amendment:

You may not like it, and neither Lincoln nor Chase liked it, but secession is not prohibited anywhere in the Constitution, thus it is entirely a right of the states or people.

Furthermore, the Constitution in Article 7 says:

The Constitution was only ever binding on the states when they consented to it. Afterall, our founders believed in the following (from the Declaration of Independence):

To say our founders would have wanted secession prohibited is absurd. They seceded from Great Britain themselves.
We have to look at the text, and I'm arguing that secession is functionally banned, not explicitly banned.

But this is a digression. I was not suggesting that the Confederates were traitors, but rather that flying the symbols of enemies of the United States makes me uncomfortable, because it symbolically feels treasonous. "Treason" probably isn't the right word. Obviously it's speech protected under the First Amendment. It just makes me jittery.

And that is the question I was responding to - "What's wrong with the Confederate flag?"

 
Old 02-05-2009, 08:16 AM
 
416 posts, read 712,910 times
Reputation: 111
Another side-track:

Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
The Constitution was only ever binding on the states when they consented to it.
State nullification of the Constitution? Really? Are you kidding?
 
Old 02-05-2009, 08:43 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,499,682 times
Reputation: 11351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unstable View Post
Another side-track:



State nullification of the Constitution? Really? Are you kidding?
It's there in black and white, it only applied(s) to the states that consented to it. So perhaps rather than secession a state merely needs to un-ratify it.
 
Old 02-05-2009, 08:49 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,499,682 times
Reputation: 11351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unstable View Post
We have to look at the text, and I'm arguing that secession is functionally banned, not explicitly banned.

But this is a digression. I was not suggesting that the Confederates were traitors, but rather that flying the symbols of enemies of the United States makes me uncomfortable, because it symbolically feels treasonous. "Treason" probably isn't the right word. Obviously it's speech protected under the First Amendment. It just makes me jittery.

And that is the question I was responding to - "What's wrong with the Confederate flag?"
Looking at the text secession is perfectly legal. Looking at our history (Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, etc.), secession is a right. Lincoln was a tyrant, and not only on secession (locking up without trial and even having dissenters executed, to name one). To use his tyranny as an argument against secession is not such a good idea. Secession may very well go very differently in the present day if done by reasonable leaders. No slavery to use an excuse to fight it. Avoiding another Fort Sumter would eliminate that excuse. The Southern states had every right to secede, but between some poor decisions and a hot head for a northern president, it didn't go well. As far as I'm concerned the rebel battle flag represents true American values (i.e., standing up to a government that no longer represents you). The Southerners did the same thing Americans did against the British in the 1770's and 80's. The Confederates weren't enemies until the war broke out. There were attempts to arrive at a peaceful resolution between the US and CSA. Leadership failed in the 1860's, especially U.S. leadership, no one would give an inch, and so the war erupted...
 
Old 02-05-2009, 08:49 AM
 
416 posts, read 712,910 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
It's there in black and white, it only applied(s) to the states that consented to it. So perhaps rather than secession a state merely needs to un-ratify it.
Ah, I misread your post. You were talking about ratification of the whole, not nullification of specific provisions. My apologies.
 
Old 02-05-2009, 08:51 AM
 
416 posts, read 712,910 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Looking at the text secession is perfectly legal. Looking at our history (Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, etc.), secession is a right. Lincoln was a tyrant, and not only on secession (locking up without trial and even having dissenters executed, to name one). To use his tyranny as an argument against secession is not such a good idea. Secession may very well go very differently in the present day if done by reasonable leaders. No slavery to use an excuse to fight it. Avoiding another Fort Sumter would eliminate that excuse. The Southern states had every right to secede, but between some poor decisions and a hot head for a northern president, it didn't go well. As far as I'm concerned the rebel battle flag represents true American values (i.e., standing up to a government that no longer represents you). The Southerners did the same thing Americans did against the British in the 1770's and 80's.
Well, I think people who think like you do need a different symbol, and not one associated with those "bad decisions."
 
Old 02-05-2009, 08:55 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,499,682 times
Reputation: 11351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unstable View Post
Well, I think people who think like you do need a different symbol, and not one associated with those "bad decisions."
As a rule of thumb I do prefer the Gadsden flag but I don't see the Confederate battle flag as evil like some...
 
Old 02-05-2009, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Here
312 posts, read 507,375 times
Reputation: 77
the confederate flag represents to me the civil war. not a veryhappy time in the history of the USA.
although thge south will always be remembered as the pro slavery side, which is a big reason why they lost the war, they had made some really valid points about not having too strong a federal government.
 
Old 02-05-2009, 03:54 PM
 
8,978 posts, read 16,558,314 times
Reputation: 3020
Seriously? Good question. "What's wrong with the Confederate Flag?"...you mean, of course, not in a movie, or a museum, but out in the "general public"? NOTHING is wrong with the Confederate flag that isn't "wrong" with MANY things....loud rap music, sagging pants, T-shirt messages in bad taste, Gang attire, body piercing, nose-picking, coarse language, loud cell phone conversations, scratching your 'private parts' in a restaurant, shopping in your sweat-pants, and many other things. ALL these things are LEGAL. It's a FREE COUNTRY, and anybody can "do" these things; they can ALSO display the Confederate Flag...They don't need a REASON other than just "Because they CAN". Period.

These things are ALSO rude. They're disrespectful, divisive, annoying, and 'trashy'. They degrade public life, are intrusive, and in SOME cases, intimidating. But they're LEGAL. No law can legislate good manners. The Confederate flag makes a LOT of people feel VERY uncomfortable, and uneasy. But that's OK..that's THEIR problem, right?

Go ahead and display ANY flag you want...turn up the 'boom box', crank up the cell phone, 'snap' that bubble gum, let those pants sag, and throw in a few four-letter words as well. NOBODY can tell us what to do, and that INCLUDES displaying the Confederate flag. It MAY be intentionally divisive and intentionally annoying..but there's no law against "annoying" people...right? Didn't our forefathers fight and die for our right to be 'annoying'? It's a free country.
 
Old 02-10-2009, 09:45 AM
 
3 posts, read 4,470 times
Reputation: 15
It's truly amazing to me that many northerners who have had one visit, or one experience with the South, and therefor consider themselves experts. There are a lot of things that are uniquely Southern. From food to music to culture. For me, this is what it means. From a historical viewpoint, the South withdrew from what it perceived to be a voluntary union because of unfair tariffs and taxes. For this the Union invaded, burned, and otherwise declared war on Southern civilians. The folks who attribute this to racism simply don't know their history. I'm sure I speak for many other Southerners when I make this statement. I would be more then happy to take down my Southern flag if you meddlesome yankees can answer just one question. Why is it ok, even fashionable to display the red, black, and green flag of Marcus Garvey, have a separate organization to promote black rights (NAACP), College fund for blacks (UNCF), black holidays, etc. But if a white person does this, it is interpreted as racist? If we are to be truly equal, is this fair? We've come a long way. There should be a balance. Euro-Americans are the most hated, belittled, and unfairly treated bunch. Where is your fairness?
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.



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