To most white Southerners: Justify using the Confederate flag!

[Formaldehyde]

Originally posted by Kilroy


Sedition and secession are two distinct actions. It is possible to do one without doing the other. It is also, I suppose, possible to do both at the same time. You haven't addressed my derivation of the right to secede from the first principle of government only gaining legitimacy through consent of the governed. In fact all you've done to refute my claim that secession is an inalienable right, is to make an arbitrary claim to the contrary. That isn't very convincing.

You also don't seem to recognize that the laws and justice system of the secedee are irrelevant in determining the legality of the actions of the secedor.

To put it bluntly once you are in you are in. You have agreed to abide by federal laws and there is no going back. Don't like it? Move to another country. That's your only alternative.

Originally posted by Hamlet


What is factually wrong or right is irrelevant to this.

Why should it be illegal or wrong for people to determine their constiutional status by democratic methods?

It's total nonsense, not to mention hypocritical and illiberal, to say that people should be allowed to make any demcoratic decision within a set framework, on any issue, except the democratic decision to leave said framework.

States are specifically prohibited by the Constitution from acting as a country.

 

[MarineCorps]

Bright idea there CurtFormaldehyde a few things h #1. Wyrmshadow was not flaming or trolling, and the Admin doesn't uassly hang around in the off topic the mods are the ones who keep this place clean. m #2. I know that I am going to get a lot of greif over this but.. I am sure that the United Kingdom felt the same way about the US rebelling as we did about the south rebelling. So in other words sedtion was against the law but the US did it anyways.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It was against your law. If you have won you probably would have hanged most if not all of the leaders.

In order to successfully revolt you must first succeed. The South did not and many obviously still hold a grudge even today.

And yes, "WRONG DUMMY" is a flame...

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by MarineCorps
Bright idea there Curt: rolleyes:

Ohh, pretty cutting sarcasm! (for a marine)

The way things are going a second battle honestly wouldn't surprise me.

Remember 1992? All it takes is a few incidents to spark chaos.

 

[MarineCorps]

No it wasn't a flame. What are you mean by your law, I am hoping you do not mean to imply that I am from Great Britian, becasue if you look at where I am from I am in Maine.

 

[MarineCorps]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


Ohh, pretty cutting sarcasm! (for a marine)

The way things are going a second battle honestly wouldn't surprise me.

Remember 1992? All it takes is a few incidents to spark chaos.

m No I don't remember what happened in 92 althrough it also wouldn't suprise me if there was a second battle.

 

[Kilroy]

Originally posted by Formaldehyde
So what? 7 out of 10 Americans think Iraq was involved in 9/11. Opinion no matter how widely believed doesn't change the facts. It was then and it is now against the law to attempt to overthrow the US government.

Well, you're right in saying "so what," but not for the right reasons. Yes, it is irrelevant whether the secedor itself has the consent of its governed, in determining whether the secedor has the right to secede. In the case of the US, individual persons are only ruled by the federal government by proxy via the states. That is, they are not party to any social contracts at the federal level, thus there is nothing for them to secede from. It is up to the state government and the state government alone to determine whether it will continue to honor the terms of the social contract. Whether it is an egalitarian paradise or a brutal authoritarian regime isn't relevant.

Now, whether the nation formed after the secession, governs with the consent of the governed or not, is (perhaps) a good reason to go to war with a neighboring country. That is, an argument could be made that the North would have been justified in invading the South to free the slaves (which they didn't do, Lincoln himself said that, if he could hold the Union together without freeing a single slave, he would do it). However, conquering the South and forcing them to submit to their rule, was an act of tyranny. Not recognizing their right to secede was a moral outrage, did great damage to the post-war Union, and constituted abandonment of the principles upon which the US was founded.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Formaldehyde
States are specifically prohibited by the Constitution from acting as a country.

Why do you keep quoting tangentially related legal and constitutional positions at me?

Do you agree with the position on moral/practical grounds, or not?

 

[Stapel]

Originally posted by Formaldehyde
This whole "We weren't fighting for the right to own humans but because we hate Northerners who were telling us what to do" and "there is nothing wrong with the Confederate flag or the swastika" seems to be the new credo of the Southern ultraconservatives.

I dislike this. Comparing the german swastika flag with the confederate battle flag is a bit out of line.

The swastika flag was used by a regime that killed 10 million civilians. And not just by collateral damage, but by plan.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Originally posted by MarineCorps
What are you mean by your law, I am hoping you do not mean to imply that I am from Great Britian, becasue if you look at where I am from I am in Maine.

Oops. Sorry about that.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Originally posted by Stapel


I dislike this. Comparing the german swastika flag with the confederate battle flag is a bit out of line.

The swastika flag was used by a regime that killed 10 million civilians. And not just by collateral damage, but by plan.

That is true but they are both now used by skinheads and neo-fascists in this country as symbols of their racial hatred.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by MarineCorps
m No I don't remember what happened in 92 althrough it also wouldn't suprise me if there was a second battle.

I am meaning the LA riots.

On a small scale, that mayhem displayed how easily an 'ordered' society can collapse.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Or how little order there really is in specific areas particularly the black neighborhoods in large cities...

 

[Kilroy]

Originally posted by Formaldehyde
To put it bluntly once you are in you are in. You have agreed to abide by federal laws and there is no going back. Don't like it? Move to another country. That's your only alternative.

Well, you'll notice that I did, first of all. Secondly, you still haven't addressed:

You also don't seem to recognize that the laws and justice system of the secedee are irrelevant in determining the legality of the actions of the secedor.

How are they relevant? To what supreme authority do they appeal to? Remember, "supreme" means a higher authority than both parties involved in the conflict, secedee and secedor both. The only answer you can possibly come up with is "God," and something tells me he won't show up for court

Not to mention basing morality on God's will is opening a can of worms that needn't be opened in this thread.

States are specifically prohibited by the Constitution from acting as a country.

As long as they remain a party to that Constitution, yes.

 

[sonorakitch]

This whole "We weren't fighting for the right to own humans but because we hate Northerners who were telling us what to do" and "there is nothing wrong with the Confederate flag or the swastika" seems to be the new credo of the Southern ultraconservatives.

Formaldehyde,

Wyrmshadow hit the nail on the head with his post and you do need to read up on your history bro. Just check out some turn-of-the-century books if you think this is revisionist history. There was another, very big reason the civil war occurred. During the election of 1860, Lincoln won by a small percentage, and the votes of the state of South Carolina were actually thrown out by the industrial north. Read up on it. I'd be pissed too.

I understand you may be intimidated by the Confederate symbol. I am not from the south or the north, but I do recognize the importance of roots and family and geography to people. If they want their flag, why the hell should you care? Because you're offended? Give me a break man, I am offended by the sight of two males kissing but I don't give a damn and I won't whine about it. I am offended by all sorts of things, but just get a thick skin and get over it. You live with 300 million other people. Not to mention the 5 1/2 billion others out there who would love to offend you!!!

~Chris

 

[Formaldehyde]

Originally posted by Hamlet


Why do you keep quoting tangentially related legal and constitutional positions at me?

Do you agree with the position on moral/practical grounds, or not?

Sorry, I thought I had been perfectly clear since I have already stated numerous times that states do not have the right to seceed. It's not a moral issue. It's a constitutional one. Furthermore, it is sedition which is clearly against the law.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Originally posted by sonorakitch

Wyrmshadow hit the nail on the head with his post and you do need to read up on your history bro. Just check out some turn-of-the-century books if you think this is revisionist history. There was another, very big reason the civil war occurred. During the election of 1860, Lincoln won by a small percentage, and the votes of the state of South Carolina were actually thrown out by the industrial north. Read up on it. I'd be pissed too.

I am fairly well read on history. I am also apparently quite a bit older than either of you so I no longer believe I have all the answers.

However, the main reason behind the Civil War was and will always be the issue of slavery and how to deal with the abolition despite what some Southern revisionist instructors might try to tell you in school.

Furthermore, the South was wrong and the North was right. The good guys won and the bad guys lost. Now please get over it.

Originally posted by sonorakitch

I understand you may be intimidated by the Confederate symbol. I am not from the south or the north, but I do recognize the importance of roots and family and geography to people. If they want their flag, why the hell should you care? Because you're offended? Give me a break man, I am offended by the sight of two males kissing but I don't give a damn and I won't whine about it. I am offended by all sorts of things, but just get a thick skin and get over it. You live with 300 million other people. Not to mention the 5 1/2 billion others out there who would love to offend you!!!

~Chris

Racism offends me. It always has and it always will. However, I am not intimidated by it. If I was I wouldn't be living in the deep South right now. Millions of black are also offended by it but the people who continue to fly the Confederate flag don't seem to care. I wonder why?

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


I am meaning the LA riots.

On a small scale, that mayhem displayed how easily an 'ordered' society can collapse.

Whoops. I thought you were talking about people that voted for Perot.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Originally posted by Kilroy
How are they relevant? To what supreme authority do they appeal to?

The victor is always the supreme authority on such matters. Just ask the Germans or the Japanense or the Iraqis.

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Whoops. I thought you were talking about people that voted for Perot.

ROFLMAO.

 

[Speedo]

Somebody will be offended no matter what you do. Thats why we have freedom of speech here.