Confederate Flag.

[Paleoconservatarian]

There was no Constitutional grounds for preventing the states from succeeding. Look it up. In fact, the Constitution quite clearly states that powers not delegated within the Constitution reside solely with the states. Furthermore, US troops defied demands from the Confederacy to withdraw from their soil. The presence of foreign troops on Confederate soil, who would not depart at the behest of the southern government, is tantamount to war in and of itself. They made the first aggressive move by parking on Confederate soil.

Not only that, but the very existence of the Union and the Constitution PROVE that the States had every right to secede. In Virginia's declaration of ratification, we read:

We the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, Do in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

If it was Virginia's right to do this, it was by default the right of ANY state to do the same.

 

[jameseb]

Backing up a bit, I have a question which I will ask. Is other people's perception ever enough of a reason to make a decision?

I don't know enough about the history of the US to make any kind of intelligent contribution here but I do know that Canada had slavery too. And I would bet that at least 95% of the people on this thread said "what?". Well, it is true... but because we are here to the North and we didn't fight a civil war that has since been constructed as being about slavery, that piece of our history is largely forgotten. As that is the case, the Canadian flag does not get associated with slavery by anyone that I have ever met.... this is of course aided by our history as the ultimate destination of the underground railway.

Anyway, as some of you know, I was born into a Jewish family and have always identified myself as Jewish... even when that identity was hyphenated with words such as secular, humanist, agnostic and Christian (not ever Messianic).... anyway, I assume that many of you also know that the swastika has been a very powerful symbol in many cultures/religions including Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism and among several First Nations such as the Navajo. Now, in Navajo tradition, as I understand it, the swastika (although I am quite sure that it has another name that I do not know... and couldn't find just now) is associated with very positive things.... I am getting to a point here. I promise.

Okay, if I lived in Arizona, and I was walking downtown... and to promote a concert, a Navajo band put up posters that had a picture of them in front of a big swastika... would I have to right to be upset? Knowing what we know about the different ways that a Jew and a Navajo will see the swastika, is it just a matter of respect for the Navajo to keep that symbol out of public view.... OR, should I simply realize that the symbol means a very different thing and learn to walk on by without thinking twice.... keeping in mind that whatever you tell me about what the swastika means to the Navajo, every time I see it I can only see Jews being loaded into trains and gassed to death.

I don't know the right answer to this question although I certainly lean one way (obviously)....

Heya JD, let me give it a shot.

I think its unfortunate that the "swastika" has become associated with evils of Nazi Germany. As you mentioned, there are cultures that see a different meaning in the symbol than most Europeans and European-Americans see. I think the thing to keep in mind is how the symbol is used, what meaning is given to its use. One could suggest you should walk on by it, not thinking twice, but in reality neither you nor most of us reading this will ever be able to banish the thought of Nazi Germany from our heads when we see a swastika.

To use a bad example here.... its sorta like loving a really great movie you had watched with an ex-girlfriend whom you later had a really bad break up with. When you see the movie again your torn between appreciating a good film and dealing with the sad or bad memories of watching it with your ex that you've mentally and emotionally associated with it. Does that make sense?

 

[Redneck]

n unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

Here's the rest.

 

[dclem9834]

Not only that, but the very existence of the Union and the Constitution PROVE that the States had every right to secede. In Virginia's declaration of ratification, we read:

We the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, Do in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

If it was Virginia's right to do this, it was by default the right of ANY state to do the same.

The constitution at many points puts the supremacy of the government in the national government, this means that any attempt by the state to make it self supreme or above the US federal gov. would be unconstitutional, that would include seceeding. virginia might have tried to claim the right to be able to take back the consent for the constitution but that is being a traitor to this country by not upholding the most important document we have. the rights of the south were not being supressed except for the fact slavory was going to be abolished so i would think that there claim that such an injustice was being done that they had to leave the union is pretty week and very shallow

 

[armyman_83]

Can you show your "parts" of the Constitution? And why should Federal government be above State Gov.?

 

[Jonathan David]

Heya JD, let me give it a shot.

I think its unfortunate that the "swastika" has become associated with evils of Nazi Germany. As you mentioned, there are cultures that see a different meaning in the symbol than most Europeans and European-Americans see. I think the thing to keep in mind is how the symbol is used, what meaning is given to its use. One could suggest you should walk on by it, not thinking twice, but in reality neither you nor most of us reading this will ever be able to banish the thought of Nazi Germany from our heads when we see a swastika.

To use a bad example here.... its sorta like loving a really great movie you had watched with an ex-girlfriend whom you later had a really bad break up with. When you see the movie again your torn between appreciating a good film and dealing with the sad or bad memories of watching it with your ex that you've mentally and emotionally associated with it. Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense (and I love your analogy... I can relate in a VERY direct way... frightening... anyway,...) and I guess that's the point about the flag. I think that there are some good reasons to be drawn to the flag and to want to use it as a prominent symbol BUT unfortunately it will always represent slavery, lynchings, segregation etc to many people in black communitites (and outside of them for that matter). At that point, the decision becomes a question of balancing the reasons that one wants to keep the flag with the knowledge of the unintended pain (and in some cases fear) that such use will cause to fellow humans.... at least that's the way that I see it. And of course I have my own opinions about that question (along the lines of "Love your brother (and sister)...") but it may be easier to have those opinions from Canada than it is to have them in the South. I just mean that I don't have any attachment to the confederate flag so it is easy to suggest that it be retired out of respect for others.

(and thanks for addressing the question. I appreciate it)

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

The constitution at many points puts the supremacy of the government in the national government, this means that any attempt by the state to make it self supreme or above the US federal gov. would be unconstitutional, that would include seceeding. virginia might have tried to claim the right to be able to take back the consent for the constitution but that is being a traitor to this country by not upholding the most important document we have. the rights of the south were not being supressed except for the fact slavory was going to be abolished so i would think that there claim that such an injustice was being done that they had to leave the union is pretty week and very shallow

There are several ways to answer this. I can begin without even looking at the Constitution, and take it from a rational, theoretical standpoint. If the conditions of Virginia's ratification were false, then Virginia's ratification of the Constitution is invalid, and Virginia was never truly a part of the United States to begin with. The same applies to any other state with the same or similar conditions.

Second, where are these points in the Constitution which claim that the federal government is supreme? Furthermore, you must ask yourself which areas of governance it is supreme. I should also point out that there was no national government. The terminology in the Constitution is "federal," and there's a difference. For more information, you might consult Federalist no. 39.

Even if there is a supremacy within the federal government, this is only insofar that the federal government has the exclusive authority to do those things enumerated in the Constiution. All other powers are given to the States and to the people, as per logic first, and the Tenth Amendment also. The States cannot make themselves supreme over the federal government in those functions delegated to the latter by the Constitution, and furthermore those powers the States retain cannot be exercised over other states via the national entity. What makes the States sovereign is their exclusive right to withdraw from the agreement they voluntarily entered. The Union is the creature of the States, and not the other way 'round. That's why we call them states, and not provinces. Statehood implies autonomy.

Furthermore, the existence of the United States results philosophically from the assertion of the right of secession, and actually from the exercise of this right. The Colonies declared their secession from Great Britain, asserting their right to do so in the Declaration of Independence. This nation was founded on secession! For Lincoln to deny this right was treason. Virginia's assertion of this right was not treasonous.

 

[Redneck]

Might I also point out that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.

 

[Cherub8]

Might I also point out that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.

Personally I like the Confederate Flag. And setting slavery aside for a moment, I like what the Confederacy stood for. I think the reason God did not grant them victory is because of their attachment to slavery. Had they abandonded slavery, I believe God would have blessed them. They would be a great nation!

 

[dclem9834]

There are several ways to answer this. I can begin without even looking at the Constitution, and take it from a rational, theoretical standpoint. If the conditions of Virginia's ratification were false, then Virginia's ratification of the Constitution is invalid, and Virginia was never truly a part of the United States to begin with. The same applies to any other state with the same or similar conditions.

Virginia's ratification was false?!?!? where did that come from Virginia ratified the constitution like every other state and i think 4 of the first 5 presidents were from virginia, the state legally ratified the consitution and infact led much of the discussion on what should be in it

Second, where are these points in the Constitution which claim that the federal government is supreme? Furthermore, you must ask yourself which areas of governance it is supreme. I should also point out that there was no national government. The terminology in the Constitution is "federal," and there's a difference. For more information, you might consult Federalist no. 39.

first of all there is a national government and a state one and more local ones, and ignoring supremeacy clause in section 3 and the court cases that stated the supremeacy of the federal government there is something called Article 1 Section 10 "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" thus succeeding was illegal and treasonous.

Even if there is a supremacy within the federal government, this is only insofar that the federal government has the exclusive authority to do those things enumerated in the Constiution. All other powers are given to the States and to the people, as per logic first, and the Tenth Amendment also. The States cannot make themselves supreme over the federal government in those functions delegated to the latter by the Constitution, and furthermore those powers the States retain cannot be exercised over other states via the national entity. What makes the States sovereign is their exclusive right to withdraw from the agreement they voluntarily entered. The Union is the creature of the States, and not the other way 'round. That's why we call them states, and not provinces. Statehood implies autonomy.

the states arent sovereign, thats why they are not allowed to make treates or act on there own towards foreign governments the states dont have the right to leave the union which the entered , its like a breach of contract to do that. the states did create the union because they realized states haveing more power then a central government doesnt work, they are called states because they tried giving them more autonomy under the articles on confederation and it didnt work.

Furthermore, the existence of the United States results philosophically from the assertion of the right of secession, and actually from the exercise of this right. The Colonies declared their secession from Great Britain, asserting their right to do so in the Declaration of Independence. This nation was founded on secession! For Lincoln to deny this right was treason. Virginia's assertion of this right was not treasonous.

yes America is a country born of treason, what we did to the british was treason and ratical at that, there is no real difference. But Lincoln was following Article 1 Section 10 "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" and the declaration of independence is a pretty piece of prose but not law so Lincoln was committing no crime Virginia was

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Virginia's ratification was false?!?!? where did that come from Virginia ratified the constitution like every other state and i think 4 of the first 5 presidents were from virginia, the state legally ratified the consitution and infact led much of the discussion on what should be in it

Virginia's ratification was conditional. What I am saying is that if these conditions were not met when she ratified, then she was never legally a part of the Union, even if she acted as such. So by the very fact that Virginia ratified and entered the United States, it was declared that she had the right to secede. And if Virginia did, all of them did. (Two or three other states explicitly declared the same right).

first of all there is a national government and a state one and more local ones, and ignoring supremeacy clause in section 3 and the court cases that stated the supremeacy of the federal government there is something called Article 1 Section 10 "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" thus succeeding was illegal and treasonous.

The Constitution only recognizes the State and federal governments. Second, read your Constitution. It's divided into articles first, then sections. "Section 3" tells me nothing, and I think you're looking for Article VI, specifically the second clause which reads: "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." But this does not deny the right of secession. These laws apply while States are a part of the U.S. Where does it say they cannot secede? Also, Article VI means that the Constitution, not court precedence, is the supreme law of the land.

The same applies to Article I, section 10. It applies to the States while they remain in the Union. That is to say, no State is to enter into any confederation while it is a part of the Union. If your interpretation is correct, then it is perfectly allowable for a State to become part of an autocratic dictatorship.

the states arent sovereign, thats why they are not allowed to make treates or act on there own towards foreign governments the states dont have the right to leave the union which the entered , its like a breach of contract to do that. the states did create the union because they realized states haveing more power then a central government doesnt work, they are called states because they tried giving them more autonomy under the articles on confederation and it didnt work.

Now you've gone beyond imposing your meaning into the Constitution, but into history as well. All I can say about your last sentence is, read up on the Federalist/Anti-federalist debates. You'll discover what they were really arguing about, and learn plenty about the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and their history.

Now, as for the sovereignty of the States, recall what I said earlier. The States are sovereign in that they retain all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, and in that they may secede from the Union of their creation. You mentioned a "breach of contract," but that's exactly what motivates States to secede. The Framers had to know this, as Britain's violations must still have been fresh on their minds.

yes America is a country born of treason, what we did to the british was treason and ratical at that, there is no real difference. But Lincoln was following Article 1 Section 10 "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation" and the declaration of independence is a pretty piece of prose but not law so Lincoln was committing no crime Virginia was

I didn't say treason, I said secession. You might well have asked the founders if what they did was treason. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The Declaration maintains that secession is not only a right, but in some cases, it is the duty of the people. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. If there is no consent, there is no authority, only tyranny. So you say the Declaration was not law. That may be, but you cannot understand or explain the existence of the United States without it. I also find it interesting that in 1861, Lincoln said, "I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence."

You say that Lincoln broke no law. That's funny. He disobeyed the Constitution perhaps in more ways than can be counted. He suspended habeas corpus. He imprisoned Northerners who sympathized with the South. He sent troops to occupy the nonseceding Maryland, interfering with all democratic process there. He imprisoned many without trial and his troops sometimes executed citizens for minor offenses. He shut down hundreds of newspapers for criticizing him and his war.

...I guess he didn't view those truths to be "self-evident."

 

[Redneck]

I can see that someone else is a fan of the Declaration of Independence!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Paleoconservatarian again.

Meh.

 

[praying]

Virginia's ratification was conditional. What I am saying is that if these conditions were not met when she ratified, then she was never legally a part of the Union, even if she acted as such. So by the very fact that Virginia ratified and entered the United States, it was declared that she had the right to secede. And if Virginia did, all of them did. (Two or three other states explicitly declared the same right).



The Constitution only recognizes the State and federal governments. Second, read your Constitution. It's divided into articles first, then sections. "Section 3" tells me nothing, and I think you're looking for Article VI, specifically the second clause which reads: "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." But this does not deny the right of secession. These laws apply while States are a part of the U.S. Where does it say they cannot secede? Also, Article VI means that the Constitution, not court precedence, is the supreme law of the land.

The same applies to Article I, section 10. It applies to the States while they remain in the Union. That is to say, no State is to enter into any confederation while it is a part of the Union. If your interpretation is correct, then it is perfectly allowable for a State to become part of an autocratic dictatorship.



Now you've gone beyond imposing your meaning into the Constitution, but into history as well. All I can say about your last sentence is, read up on the Federalist/Anti-federalist debates. You'll discover what they were really arguing about, and learn plenty about the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and their history.

Now, as for the sovereignty of the States, recall what I said earlier. The States are sovereign in that they retain all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, and in that they may secede from the Union of their creation. You mentioned a "breach of contract," but that's exactly what motivates States to secede. The Framers had to know this, as Britain's violations must still have been fresh on their minds.



I didn't say treason, I said secession. You might well have asked the founders if what they did was treason. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The Declaration maintains that secession is not only a right, but in some cases, it is the duty of the people. Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. If there is no consent, there is no authority, only tyranny. So you say the Declaration was not law. That may be, but you cannot understand or explain the existence of the United States without it. I also find it interesting that in 1861, Lincoln said, "I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence."

You say that Lincoln broke no law. That's funny. He disobeyed the Constitution perhaps in more ways than can be counted. He suspended habeas corpus. He imprisoned Northerners who sympathized with the South. He sent troops to occupy the nonseceding Maryland, interfering with all democratic process there. He imprisoned many without trial and his troops sometimes executed citizens for minor offenses. He shut down hundreds of newspapers for criticizing him and his war.

...I guess he didn't view those truths to be "self-evident."

This is a test of my new wireless desktop, which is working great BTW, in which I will point out Thomas Jefferson did not mean everything he wrote in the DOI.

 

[dclem9834]

Virginia's ratification was conditional. What I am saying is that if these conditions were not met when she ratified, then she was never legally a part of the Union, even if she acted as such. So by the very fact that Virginia ratified and entered the United States, it was declared that she had the right to secede. And if Virginia did, all of them did. (Two or three other states explicitly declared the same right).

What conditions were there because i have a degree in history and minored in political science at the university of florida and i never heard or have read anything on the "conditions" that they ratified under with the one exception of there being a bill of rights which passed in 1791 to everyones delight. all the states were part of the union thats why the sent represenatives Virginia was proabably the MOST ACTIVE MEMBER of the union because of the amount of presidents that came from that state.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

What conditions were there because i have a degree in history and minored in political science at the university of florida and i never heard or have read anything on the "conditions" that they ratified under with the one exception of there being a bill of rights which passed in 1791 to everyones delight. all the states were part of the union thats why the sent represenatives Virginia was proabably the MOST ACTIVE MEMBER of the union because of the amount of presidents that came from that state.

You're running around in circles. Read post #261.

By the way... a college degree doesn't necessarily mean much. Especially if your history classes are like those at my university. There are men with degrees in history and law who would disagree with you. Men with doctorates, even. Would you say they're right, simply because they have a degree? I'm not looking for your qualifications, I'm looking to address your arguments.

 

[praying]

I'm looking to address your arguments.

Well you never addressed my question in post number 254 which is in reference to your post # 253

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Well you never addressed my question in post number 254 which is in reference to your post # 253

Well, the flag is a symbol of regional pride, and of Southern valor. Now, barring those who clearly use it otherwise, feeling alienated by it as a symbol of slavery is a misunderstanding.

 

[praying]

Well, the flag is a symbol of regional pride, and of Southern valor. Now, barring those who clearly use it otherwise, feeling alienated by it as a symbol of slavery is a misunderstanding.

I just don't understand why people believe that you can pick and choose what the flag represented. The flag was the flag of Confederate States of America and as such it stood for everything the CSA stood for which included slavery and which included raciism. Please expalin to me how this is not so?

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I just don't understand why people believe that you can pick and choose what the flag represented. The flag was the flag of Confederate States of America and as such it stood for everything the CSA stood for which included slavery and which included raciism. Please expalin to me how this is not so?

I think the best way to explain why that is not so is to presuppose that it is so. Old Glory once flew over a nation which condoned slavery. Therefore, Old Glory must stand for slavery. In Africa, slavery is still alive. Each flag of those slave nations must therefore represent slavery. Also, the flag in question (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) is the Southern Cross, which was the Confederate battle flag. The Stars and Bars is the flag of the CSA, and therefore, using my presupposition, stands for slavery. The Southern Cross represented, as I said, Southern valor. What they were fighting for: independence. Furthermore, the Southern Cross actually originates from the cross of St. Andrew.

Old Glory, by necessity, must be many times worse than the Confederate flag. The US flag represents slavery, racism, total war, Hieroshima and Nagasaki, abortion... the list goes on.

Now, isn't that just a bit silly?

 

[praying]

I think the best way to explain why that is not so is to presuppose that it is so. Old Glory once flew over a nation which condoned slavery. Therefore, Old Glory must stand for slavery

That is very true but the North unlike the South did not so thoroughly embody racism as principle to the point of invoking it in all state constitutions and local laws.

. In Africa, slavery is still alive. Each flag of those slave nations must therefore represent slavery.

It does if said slavery is embodied in the nation's laws.

Also, the flag in question (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) is the Southern Cross, which was the Confederate battle flag. The Stars and Bars is the flag of the CSA, and therefore, using my presupposition, stands for slavery. The Southern Cross represented, as I said, Southern valor. What they were fighting for: independence. Furthermore, the Southern Cross actually originates from the cross of St. Andrew.

The flag in question is the Confederate flag, be it the battle flag or the Stars and Bars. Southern "rebels" fought in the CSA's Army because they believed in the South and ALL of the principles it stood for. And we are not talking about some obscure principle either, this was a major sticking point as noted by Alexander's Cornerstone Speech.