WaPo: School bus driver fired over Confederate flag

[Rocky21]

School bus driver fired over Confederate flag

The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 9, 2011; 8:49 PM

GRANTS PASS, Ore. -- An Oregon school bus driver fired after he refused to remove a Confederate battle flag flying from his pickup truck has enlisted the help of a conservative civil liberties group in hopes of getting his job back.

The Rutherford Institute of Charlottesville, Va., sent a letter Wednesday to First Student Bus Transportation Services demanding that Ken Webber of Medford, Ore., be reinstated. The institute says flying the flag is covered by his First Amendment right to free speech.

More at the link....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/09/AR2011030905303_pf.html

His truck was parked in the parking lot at his work. He wasn't flying it on the school bus. Discuss.

[Henry]

If he was fired for just driving around town with the flag on his truck I'd say his employer was clearly in the wrong, but I guess if the parking lot is privately owned, the owner can decide what is displayed on it?

I'm not sure.

[twa]

Seems excessive,but his contract probably allows for firing over such things

The employer has rights and responsibilities to it's other employees and in this case the public.

I don't agree with the decision, but understand it.

added

I hope he prevails in a lawsuit

[Bang]

Associations you make reflect upon you.
They always have.

~Bang

[zoony]

a confederate flag flying in the school parking lot? **** him. what a loser.

[Rocky21]

Not to sound like one of those guys but I wonder what the school system's repsonse would be if he was celebrating his Puerto Rican heritage by flying the flag of Puerto Rico on his truck?

[Henry]

a confederate flag flying in the school parking lot? **** him. what a loser.

Aaaaaaand here we go. :)

[zoony]

Aaaaaaand here we go. :)

:ols:

well?

[Henry]

Not to sound like one of those guys but I wonder what the school system's repsonse would be if he was celebrating his Puerto Rican heritage by flying the flag of Puerto Rico on his truck?

I wonder what a school system in Atlanta, GA would think if one of their employees flew a big flag that said "The South lost! Get over it!" with a map charting Sherman's march to the sea on it.

[Rocky21]

I wonder what a school system in Atlanta, GA would think if one of their employees flew a big flag that said "The South lost! Get over it!" with a map charting Sherman's march to the sea on it.Henry you mean you think this is politically motivated? :)

Where does it end? Scouring the parking lot for Pro Choice or Pro Life bumper stickers?

[Henry]

Henry you mean you think this is politically motivated? :)

Where does it end? Scouring the parking lot for Pro Choice or Pro Life bumper stickers?

I think it's culturally motivated. The battle flag of Lee's army is offensive to a lot of people up north. Just like the flag I described would be offensive to a lot of people in the south.

I don't think the flag of Puerto Rico is comparable in any way. Nor is a bumper sticker stating a political position.

[Skin'Em84]

I wonder what a school system in Atlanta, GA would think if one of their employees flew a big flag that said "The South lost! Get over it!" with a map charting Sherman's march to the sea on it.

I need to get one of those.

[Madison Redskin]

Broadly speaking, employers can fire employees for just about any reason unless they have agreed otherwise in an employment agreement or CBA. Setting aside the legal issues, I think it's wrong to fire him. I'm sure the ACLU will be interested in the case; contrary to popular belief, they've represented right-wing clients in the past.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Associations you make reflect upon you.
They always have.

~Bang

I like this post. I think I agree with this.

Ultimately, depending on the letter of the law, I could see this decision being reversed. However, I don't mind that someone flying the stars and bars gets his cage rattled a bit.

[Destino]

Not to sound like one of those guys but I wonder what the school system's repsonse would be if he was celebrating his Puerto Rican heritage by flying the flag of Puerto Rico on his truck?
We're comparing the confederate flag to any random nations flag now? Hmmm interesting.

I can easily argue the south rose to defend the institution of slavery. It's not a hard argument to make being that Southern leaders at the time of the civil war have already done all the work. At best I think the flag represents a failed attempt to destroy the United States of America. At worst I think it represents a time in this nations history where brother was made to kill brother in order to keep human beings as property. I don't get the same vibe off of a flag representing an unincorporated territory of the United States of America. Are there any other such areas you feel equate to the confederate flag? Does the little boat in Guam's flag bring out feelings of injustice when you see it?

[Bang]

I like this post. I think I agree with this.

Ultimately, depending on the letter of the law, I could see this decision being reversed. However, I don't mind that someone flying the stars and bars gets his cage rattled a bit.

the law probably will find in his favor (as it should), but the message should be pretty clear to the guy.
Living as a pariah sucks.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

I didn't know Oregon was part of the Confederacy.

[twa]

I wonder what a school system in Atlanta, GA would think if one of their employees flew a big flag that said "The South lost! Get over it!" with a map charting Sherman's march to the sea on it.

That another carpetbagger has arrived?....would you support a firing over that?

[Henry]

That another carpetbagger has arrived?....would you support a firing over that?

Did I support the firing over this?

That wasn't my point.

[skinsfan_1215]

I didn't know Oregon was part of the Confederacy.

To be fair, the town is in southern Oregon.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=grants+pass+oregon&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Grants+Pass,+OR&gl=us&ei=_-l4TcfsI-6D0QHwhrnkAw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q8gEwAA

At least he's got that going for him. :silly:

[Destino]

That another carpetbagger has arrived?....would you support a firing over that?

Assuming the person survived long enough to be fired.

[Corcaigh]

I'd like to know the back story.

If one of my employees was doing something like this that I felt was detrimental to the company but easily fixed, I'd give them the opportunity to correct it. And if they refused they'd be gone.

[twa]

We're comparing the confederate flag to any random nations flag now? Hmmm interesting.

Perhaps a better example would be flying a Mexican flag in Texas?

[Rocky21]

We're comparing the confederate flag to any random nations flag now? Hmmm interesting.I think it's possible that someone flying a Confederate flag on their personal vehicle could be celebrating his American Southern heritage like someone flying a Puerto Rican flag could be celebrating his Puerto Rican heritage.

[Popeman38]

Are there offensive bumper stickers on cars parked in said lot? Other flags displayed in said lot? The Confederate Flag has repeatedly been upheld as protected under the 1st Amendment. How so you ask? By the repeated victories by neo-nazi groups, the KKK and other "hate" groups that have retained the right to assemble, speak and display their signage/flags. This is no different than the Westboro Baptist Church ruling. They can show up and protest at any and all funerals they decide to protest. As much as it pisses you and I off, offensive speech and displays are the very reason the 1st Amendment is soo important.

[Larry]

Assumed from the headline that this involved displaying the flag on the bus.

But on his car, in the parking lot? (And I'm assuming that, like other places I've lived, the parking lot isn't even at a school?)

I'm with the bus driver, here. IMO, unless his contract has some kind of a "morals clause" in it, (wouldn't surprise me, working for a school district, in a job that places him alone with children), then I'd support him. (And probably even if his contract does have such a clause.)

[twa]

I'd like to know the back story.

If one of my employees was doing something like this that I felt was detrimental to the company but easily fixed, I'd give them the opportunity to correct it. And if they refused they'd be gone.

He was told to remove it and refused.

I agree with you,but then I would do the same for someone flying this
http://rlv.zcache.com/mexican_flag_viva_la_raza_viva_mexico_bumper_stick er-p128986883699784515trl0_400.jpg

Of course I'm a intolerant jerk,and probably labeled racist if I did.:ols:

[Bang]

Granted he's a bus driver and his employer is not totally in the capacity of what I'm about to say, but it might affect my decision as to whether to do business with a company before I even walk in the door. If I saw that in the employee lot, it might cause me to consider his competitor. that in itself is reason enough to ask the guy to keep it at home. ((I would think the company has to warn the guy at least once to not bring it to work before the fire him for it.)

I'm free to express myself a million different ways, but when you're at work (incuding your car being in their lot) then you're not having your rights infringed upon that your employer expects a certain level of decorum.
I wouldn't keep a skinhead walking thru the door to work in his swastika t-shirt. I'd fire him and let the lawyers fight it out. I'm not having my potential customers seeing a symbol that is inflammatory on my property.
If the court forces me to re-hire him, I guess I'd have to, but he wouldn't like his job.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

Of course I'm a intolerant jerk,and probably labeled racist if I did.:ols:

The next week is my favorite of the year ... I get to antagonize people about their fake Irishness and when, in my opinion, their stereotypes border on racism. And being Irish, I get to decide what's racist. :)

[Burgold]

I think it's possible that someone flying a Confederate flag on their personal vehicle could be celebrating his American Southern heritage like someone flying a Puerto Rican flag could be celebrating his Puerto Rican heritage.

Nah, flying the confederate flag is celebrating treason. Even if you get away from the racial stuff it is celebrating the secession. The people who quit the Union, spilled their brother's blood and fought against the United States. Was there a Confederate flag prior to the Civil War? I'm for freedom of speech, but it's one of the most anti-U.S. symbols in the U.S. It celebrates our division and almost the destruction of the country by people who wanted to tear the U.S. apart. It's not Southern pride. It's rebel pride.

[Chicken Fried]

a confederate flag flying in the school parking lot? **** him. what a loser.

Just wondering, where are you from?

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 10:51 AM ----------


Nah, flying the confederate flag is celebrating treason. Even if you get away from the racial stuff it is celebrating the secession. The people who quit the Union, spilled their brother's blood and fought against the United States. Was there a Confederate flag prior to the Civil War? I'm for freedom of speech, but it's one of the most anti-U.S. symbols in the U.S. It celebrates our division and almost the destruction of the country by people who wanted to tear the U.S. apart. It's not Southern pride. It's rebel pride.

Secession is not treason. What the South did was not subverting the government; it was withdrawing from the nation and leaving the Union as it was.

[Burgold]

Just wondering, where are you from?

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 10:51 AM ----------



Secession is not treason. What the South did was not subverting the government; it was withdrawing from the nation and leaving the Union as it was.

Which is about as violent an act as you can engage in. (My post above is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think it's also true. You can't declare the U.S. your enemy, say you are breaking away, and be loyal to your nation. That's impossible. They betrayed the U.S. in the deepest way possible. They rebelled. They went to war. They tried to become their own nation. More, they dealt with foreign nations to do so.)

[Stadium-Armory]

I think it's possible that someone flying a Confederate flag on their personal vehicle could be celebrating his American Southern heritage like someone flying a Puerto Rican flag could be celebrating his Puerto Rican heritage.

Yes, the heritage of hate and bigotry.

Its probably legal though, just like it is to fly the Nazi flag.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Which is about as violent an act as you can engage in. (My post above is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think it's also true. You can't declare the U.S. your enemy, say you are breaking away, and be loyal to your nation. That's impossible. They betrayed the U.S. in the deepest way possible. They rebelled. They went to war. They tried to become their own nation. More, they dealt with foreign nations to do so.)

I don't want to hijack this thread...but I'm curious about something.

What if the South, realizing that had different ideals, just wanted to peacefully leave the Union and be its own country. If they did that without declaring war, would you have the same issue with it? I'm just curious.

[Henry]

Which is about as violent an act as you can engage in. (My post above is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think it's also true. You can't declare the U.S. your enemy, say you are breaking away, and be loyal to your nation. That's impossible. They betrayed the U.S. in the deepest way possible. They rebelled. They went to war. They tried to become their own nation. More, they dealt with foreign nations to do so.)

In addition they encouraged other states (coincidentally the slaveholding ones) to secede as well, and when they didn't they marched armies into those states to remove them from the union through force of arms. Despite Confederate claims of fighting a 'strictly defensive' war. They had no problems staging major operations in both Kentucky and Missouri from the outset. And then eventually there was that whole business in Sharpsburg where men on both sides lost their lives in unprecedented numbers when the army flying under that particular battle flag marched into Maryland.

[Burgold]

I don't want to hijack this thread...but I'm curious about something.

What if the South, realizing that had different ideals, just wanted to peacefully leave the Union and be its own country. If they did that without declaring war, would you have the same issue with it? I'm just curious.

That's an interesting question. I'd probably support their right to do so, but still think it was a betrayal of the United States. Taking arms against your country is treason though by almost any definition and I'm not sure that you can secede without being a traitor. After all, we do swear loyalty on the flag every morning and so those who leave the union are betraying their oaths and their country.

[Popeman38]

Which is about as violent an act as you can engage in. (My post above is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think it's also true. You can't declare the U.S. your enemy, say you are breaking away, and be loyal to your nation. That's impossible. They betrayed the U.S. in the deepest way possible. They rebelled. They went to war. They tried to become their own nation. More, they dealt with foreign nations to do so.)
You know what I find funny? Marylanders always hold up that they were a Union state. Yet they were a slave state. They did not outlaw slavery until 1864, well after the Emancipation Proclamation. So not only were they a slave state, they were exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation. I know, off topic, but an interesting topic nonetheless. I have always been fascinated by the Civil War and the massive misinformation that is accepted as fact (by both sides)....

[TD_washingtonredskins]

That's an interesting question. I'd probably support their right to do so, but still think it was a betrayal of the United States. Taking arms against your country is treason though by almost any definition and I'm not sure that you can secede without being a traitor. After all, we do swear loyalty on the flag every morning and so those who leave the union are betraying their oaths and their country.

Fair enough...I was just curious. Thanks for answering! Back to discussing this numnut from Oregon!

[Popeman38]

That's an interesting question. I'd probably support their right to do so, but still think it was a betrayal of the United States.Well considering that secession was authorized by the Constitution, requiring a State Convention to vote to secede, I don't see how it could be considered treason.

[Burgold]

You know what I find funny? Marylanders always hold up that they were a Union state. Yet they were a slave state. They did not outlaw slavery until 1864, well after the Emancipation Proclamation. So not only were they a slave state, they were exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation. I know, off topic, but an interesting topic nonetheless. I have always been fascinated by the Civil War and the massive misinformation that is accepted as fact (by both sides)....

It's just a psychological defensive trick. Most of us want to pretend that our ancestors weren't "those" guys. No one wants to picture their side as the bad guys and most Marylanders today believe that the Confederates were the bad guys and what they stood for was wrong. You see the same thing happen today when we distance ourselves from an American wrong because it was the other guy's President who did it or because they themselves didn't vote that way.

On the other hand, personally, my ancestors weren't those guys. Heck, they weren't even in the country yet. :)

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 11:22 AM ----------


Well considering that secession was authorized by the Constitution, requiring a State Convention to vote to secede, I don't see how it could be considered treason.

Well, in that quote I didn't call it treason, but a betrayal. :D

It's just a personal view. I'm fully willing to be legally and even historically wrong. I just believe that if you go into open revolt, disown your nation, and kill your fellow brothers... well, your former nation has the right to consider you a rebel and a traitor.

[pjfootballer]

Henry you mean you think this is politically motivated? :)

Where does it end? Scouring the parking lot for Pro Choice or Pro Life bumper stickers?

I work at a hospital (privately owned) and they had a supervisor remove a political bumber sticker from her car
because some people were getting offended by it.

[Spartacus87]

We're comparing the confederate flag to any random nations flag now? Hmmm interesting.

I can easily argue the south rose to defend the institution of slavery. It's not a hard argument to make being that Southern leaders at the time of the civil war have already done all the work. At best I think the flag represents a failed attempt to destroy the United States of America. At worst I think it represents a time in this nations history where brother was made to kill brother in order to keep human beings as property. I don't get the same vibe off of a flag representing an unincorporated territory of the United States of America. Are there any other such areas you feel equate to the confederate flag? Does the little boat in Guam's flag bring out feelings of injustice when you see it?
Which is about as violent an act as you can engage in. (My post above is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think it's also true. You can't declare the U.S. your enemy, say you are breaking away, and be loyal to your nation. That's impossible. They betrayed the U.S. in the deepest way possible. They rebelled. They went to war. They tried to become their own nation. More, they dealt with foreign nations to do so.)
In addition they encouraged other states (coincidentally the slaveholding ones) to secede as well, and when they didn't they marched armies into those states to remove them from the union through force of arms. Despite Confederate claims of fighting a 'strictly defensive' war. They had no problems staging major operations in both Kentucky and Missouri from the outset. And then eventually there was that whole business in Sharpsburg where men on both sides lost their lives in unprecedented numbers when the army flying under that particular battle flag marched into Maryland.
+1 to all of these.

The "Southern Heritage" line of defense always makes me laugh. Yeah, the South just wanted to peacefully go their own way and exist as their own self-contained nation. One that still owned other people as property. And this "peaceful nature" would have lasted how long once U.S. western expansion would have picked up?

[DjTj]

Well considering that secession was authorized by the Constitution, requiring a State Convention to vote to secede, I don't see how it could be considered treason.Can you identify which part of the Constitution says that a state can secede by holding a State Convention?

...I don't think you'll find it written anywhere in there.
I have always been fascinated by the Civil War and the massive misinformation that is accepted as fact (by both sides)....

[pjfootballer]

Nah, flying the confederate flag is celebrating treason. Even if you get away from the racial stuff it is celebrating the secession. The people who quit the Union, spilled their brother's blood and fought against the United States. Was there a Confederate flag prior to the Civil War? I'm for freedom of speech, but it's one of the most anti-U.S. symbols in the U.S. It celebrates our division and almost the destruction of the country by people who wanted to tear the U.S. apart. It's not Southern pride. It's rebel pride.


Just wondering, where are you from?

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 10:51 AM ----------



Secession is not treason. What the South did was not subverting the government; it was withdrawing from the nation and leaving the Union as it was.

Which means the United States was treasonous to England.

[Burgold]

Which means the United States was treasonous to England.

Absolutely, which is why Franklin had that line about hanging together or we will most surely hang apart. They understood that they were being treasonous and traitors.

[Chicken Fried]

Which is about as violent an act as you can engage in. (My post above is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think it's also true. You can't declare the U.S. your enemy, say you are breaking away, and be loyal to your nation. That's impossible. They betrayed the U.S. in the deepest way possible. They rebelled. They went to war. They tried to become their own nation. More, they dealt with foreign nations to do so.)

They declared war because the Union would not let them leave. Clearly things did not go as the Confederacy wanted. They hoped to just walk away. You can argue the end result was treason, but I don't believe their initial plans were to go down that road.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 11:34 AM ----------


+1 to all of these.

The "Southern Heritage" line of defense always makes me laugh. Yeah, the South just wanted to peacefully go their own way and exist as their own self-contained nation. One that still owned other people as property. And this "peaceful nature" would have lasted how long once U.S. western expansion would have picked up?
When I see a Confederate flag, I honestly don't think about secession, slaves, or war. Around here, it's just a symbol for the South. You're saying you're Southern and proud of it. When I see people with Confederate flags, I don't think, "That person wants to secede from the US and reinstitute slaves, and he also hates all black people." I think, "He's from the South."

[Burgold]

They declared war because the Union would not let them leave. Clearly things did not go as the Confederacy wanted. They hoped to just walk away. You can argue the end result was treason, but I don't believe their initial plans were to go down that road.

I don't know that I agree. Mind you, I'm mostly having academic fun here. Let's say that Arizona decides to go one step further after saying it doesn't need to obey federal laws and declares itself its own sovereign nation. Do you think that most people will consider them loyal to the U.S. or rebels and traitors? The very notion of divorcing yourself from your parent nation is one that is incredibly extreme and bound to be looked at as hostile and insulting by the parent nation.

If Arizona declared today that it was no longer a part of the United States how would you classify it?

[Popeman38]

Can you identify which part of the Constitution says that a state can secede by holding a State Convention?

...I don't think you'll find it written anywhere in there.
At length the Philadelphia Convention was called to frame more effective articles of Union. Rhode Island, which had blocked all previous attempts at constitutional reform, did not even bother to send delegates. Everybody knew that a new constitution would not be adopted by the legislatures of all thirteen States. In order to deal with this problem, the framers adopted Article VII of the United States Constitution says, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient to the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” The critical debate on this clause was on July 23, 1787, and in this debate the rationale of the framers is made clear.4 In each State, there was to be a convention of the people, modeled after the Convention Parliament of 1689, which could exercise sovereign power to secede from the old Confederation, and join the new Union. And since each State acting by such a convention could secede from the old Confederation and join a new Union, each State necessarily enjoyed the reserved right, by means of such a convention, to secede from the new Union whenever extraordinary circumstances might make such a revolutionary but peaceable and lawful act necessary. In the Virginia Convention of 1788, a young lawyer and politician by the name of John Marshall, who later became Chief Justice of the United States, articulated the principle as it was understood by all, -- “It is the people who give the power, and can take it back.”5 It is difficult to believe that John Marshall actually conceded the right of a State to secede from the Union when the United States Constitution was adopted. Yet he did endorse the right of a State to secede from the Union as an antidote to abuse of power by the Federal government, and the same right of secession was also conceded in those days even by such prominent federalists as Alexander Hamilton6 and James Madison.7 Bolded

It is not specifically called out, but it is clear that if you can join the Union by a forming a Convention and voting, you can leave the Union by forming a Convention and voting.

[visionary]

You would think they would be more concerned with the way he treats the different students on his bus than the way he treats his truck.

[Bang]

You would think they would be more concerned with the way he treats the different students on his bus than the way he treats his truck.

or how he reflects on the company..

~Bang

[headexplode]

The next week is my favorite of the year ... I get to antagonize people about their fake Irishness and when, in my opinion, their stereotypes border on racism. And being Irish, I get to decide what's racist. :)

Go choke on a potato you loud-mouthed drunk.

[frostyj]

That's an interesting question. I'd probably support their right to do so, but still think it was a betrayal of the United States. Taking arms against your country is treason though by almost any definition and I'm not sure that you can secede without being a traitor. After all, we do swear loyalty on the flag every morning and so those who leave the union are betraying their oaths and their country.

The Pledge didn't come around until 1892 or so.

Why do the bad guys(Confederate and Nazi) always have the cool looking flags?
I see no issue, if someone is offended by it let them be offended.

If someone is offended by something someone displays and that person has to remove what was offensive, can they put it back by being offended for offending? :silly:

[Burgold]

If someone is offended by something someone displays and that person has to remove what was offensive, can they put it back by being offended for offending? :silly:

Believe it or not, I agree with you. I think his Freedom to Express should allow the flying of this flag on his personal property. Maybe the school could have asked him to stow it when he was on school grounds, but otherwise, he should have the right to declare this. It's not such an outrageous symbol or such a violently inciteful symbol that he needs to be immediately banned from public useage.

(Even though it declares him a traitor and hater of the United States of America ;) )

[Henry]

They declared war because the Union would not let them leave. Clearly things did not go as the Confederacy wanted. They hoped to just walk away. You can argue the end result was treason, but I don't believe their initial plans were to go down that road.

Perhaps, however four of them were still part of the Union when shots were fired against federal troops. Then when war was obviously inevitable they seceded. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas didn't hope to just walk away. They picked the side belligerent to the USA. They knew they were going to fight when they seceded. That flag represents, among other things, the most powerful army of one those states.


When I see a Confederate flag, I honestly don't think about secession, slaves, or war. Around here, it's just a symbol for the South. You're saying you're Southern and proud of it. When I see people with Confederate flags, I don't think, "That person wants to secede from the US and reinstitute slaves, and he also hates all black people." I think, "He's from the South."

Why does that flag represent the south? Why does the south need to be represented as separate from the rest of us at all? Does anyone even KNOW what any of the Northern battle flags looked like? Does anyone ever fly them around with pride, talking about how great it is to be from the North? I guess I just don't get that.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Absolutely, which is why Franklin had that line about hanging together or we will most surely hang apart. They understood that they were being treasonous and traitors.

So, would flying the American flag be celebrating treason also?

[DjTj]

Bolded

It is not specifically called out, but it is clear that if you can join the Union by a forming a Convention and voting, you can leave the Union by forming a Convention and voting.Where is your quote from? It's not from the Constitution, and it doesn't look like it's from any legal authority.

Here is what the Supreme Court said in 1868:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

The Supreme Court, Congress, and most importantly, President Lincoln certainly viewed secession as an illegal and unconstitutional act.

[Spartacus87]

When I see a Confederate flag, I honestly don't think about secession, slaves, or war. Around here, it's just a symbol for the South. You're saying you're Southern and proud of it. When I see people with Confederate flags, I don't think, "That person wants to secede from the US and reinstitute slaves, and he also hates all black people." I think, "He's from the South."
I don't think that person wants to bring back slavery.

I think for a lot of people in the South though, their loyalty to the Confederate flag is misguided. What people want the Confederate flag to represent today is not what it originally stood for, but that's not exactly an easy symbol to re-write the meaning for.

It's not just a simple "symbol for the South." There's too much history, and fairly recent history at that, to honestly think of it in those terms. Southern and proud of it? What part of the Confederacy in particular invokes this pride?

[visionary]

or how he reflects on the company..

~Bang
I can understand that point of view.
On the other hand, if the guy was such a big racist, they probably shouldn't/wouldn't have hired him in the first place.
And it's odd the thing they're focusing on seems to be a flag on his truck that he doesn't use on the job.
I wonder what the students he's actually paid to deal with are saying about him.
You would think if he was so bad, there would have been a lot more complaints than this.

[Burgold]

So, would flying the American flag be celebrating treason also?

Of course it is from a certain perspective. The difference is we won and therefore got to be our own sovereign nation. That doesn't mean that we weren't filthy rebel treasonous scum at one point.

[Chicken Fried]

I don't know that I agree. Mind you, I'm mostly having academic fun here. Let's say that Arizona decides to go one step further after saying it doesn't need to obey federal laws and declares itself its own sovereign nation. Do you think that most people will consider them loyal to the U.S. or rebels and traitors? The very notion of divorcing yourself from your parent nation is one that is incredibly extreme and bound to be looked at as hostile and insulting by the parent nation.

If Arizona declared today that it was no longer a part of the United States how would you classify it?
I wouldn't classify it as treason unless they are harming the US in some way. I guess you would have to classify what the South ultimately did as treason as well.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:01 PM ----------


Perhaps, however four of them were still part of the Union when shots were fired against federal troops. Then when war was obviously inevitable they seceded. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas didn't hope to just walk away. They picked the side belligerent to the USA. They knew they were going to fight when they seceded. That flag represents, among other things, the most powerful army of one those states.

Yeah that sounds reasonable. Although I don't think they wanted to fight, but they knew they would have to.


Why does that flag represent the south? Why does the south need to be represented as separate from the rest of us at all? Does anyone even KNOW what any of the Northern battle flags looked like? Does anyone ever fly them around with pride, talking about how great it is to be from the North? I guess I just don't get that.
I'm pretty sure the Yankee battle flag was the US flag flown today without as many stars.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:03 PM ----------


I don't think that person wants to bring back slavery.

I think for a lot of people in the South though, their loyalty to the Confederate flag is misguided. What people want the Confederate flag to represent today is not what it originally stood for, but that's not exactly an easy symbol to re-write the meaning for.

It's not just a simple "symbol for the South." There's too much history, and fairly recent history at that, to honestly think of it in those terms. Southern and proud of it? What part of the Confederacy in particular invokes this pride?

It doesn't have to be the Confederacy that invokes the pride. It's just a culture thing. That's why I don't oppose the flag being flown. It doesn't mean that person or state is going to secede again. No matter what people say about this argument, for many many people, it is a matter of heritage, not secession.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Of course it is from a certain perspective. The difference is we won and therefore got to be our own sovereign nation. That doesn't mean that we weren't filthy rebel treasonous scum at one point.

You rebel scum.

[Henry]

So, would flying the American flag be celebrating treason also?

It certainly celebrates the fact that we are not part of the British empire. What do you think we're celebrating on the 4th of July?

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:13 PM ----------


You rebel scum.

:ols:

[Rocky21]

In the letter to the school bus company, the attorney for The Rutherford Institute of Charlottesville, a conservative civil rights organization, cited a 2002 federal court ruling that upheld the right of a city worker in Kansas to display a vanity license plate on his truck with a Confederate battle flag and the words, "Heritage, Not Hate," while parked at work.

[Burgold]

No matter what people say about this argument, for many many people, it is a matter of heritage, not secession.

I'm almost positive that for many you are correct about this statement. In some ways, it's like those who get offended when I wear a Redskins' cap. To them, my cap and it's logo mean something offensive and terrible and for quite a few of them their offense is sincere. Likewise, for many the Confederate flag represents hurtful associations and a dark past. While for others it represents... ? Southern Pride I guess.

We use symbols as shorthand and often our cryptologists break those symbols into different meanings. I would suppose if the symbol of the south was the Pecan Pie some would still find a way to be offended (people offended by yummy, really fattening desserts perhaps). I just think we should conscious of what we say and what others might here. Flying that Confederate Flag does shout a loud message, but the person flying the flag has no control over what message is heard. I don't really get "Southern Pride" I just don't have that kind of regional passion. I love the U.S. I love my family. I even love my team (despite how they test me). I don't have Northern or Southern pride. Heck, I'm not even sure I have much state pride. When I'm away I tell people I'm from DC because it's an easier reference point. Anyway, it's clear to me that many of those who are agitated by the Confederate Flag are sincerely troubled by it and what they feel it represents. I'm not sure that there's a rational solution to that because it's an emotional problem.

Mind you, while I sympathize with the offense my 'skins cap might bring I am still wearing it.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It certainly celebrates the fact that we are not part of the British empire. What do you think we're doing on the 4th of July?
:ols:

I'm usually watching fireworks and drinking beer...

No, I know that. I was just drawing the parallel to what was said about the Confederate flag. I guess winning a revolution changes the perception a bit!

[Rocky21]

I work at a hospital (privately owned) and they had a supervisor remove a political bumber sticker from her car
because some people were getting offended by it.The politically correct times we live in. I support someone's right to say something that offends me in the form of a bumper sticker on their own vehicle.

[headexplode]

What do you think we're celebrating on the 4th of July?


Discount prices?

[zoony]

Does anyone ever fly them around with pride, talking about how great it is to be from the North? I guess I just don't get that.

never spent any amount of time with someone from Boston, have you?

[Henry]

never spent any amount of time with someone from Boston, have you?

I had a roommate from Boston once. They are proud about the neighborhood they're from, let alone state or part of the country.

And yes, I think that's crazy too. :)

[Corcaigh]

Go choke on a potato you loud-mouthed drunk.

2/10. Failure to mention Papism, excessive breeding, hovels, proclivity to violence, and blaming the English for everything, are serious omissions.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I had a roommate from Boston once. They are proud about the neighborhood they're from, let alone state or part of the country.

And yes, I think that's crazy too. :)

You know Solly too?

[Larry]

Well considering that secession was authorized by the Constitution, requiring a State Convention to vote to secede, I don't see how it could be considered treason.

Could you quote that part for me? It seems to be missing from my copy.

[Predicto]

No way am I getting into this morass again. :ols:

but as an aside, I'm guessing that Popeman's stuff about simply calling a state convention to secede comes from the Articles of Confederation, the weak form of government we had before we ratified the Constitution.

[Popeman38]

Could you quote that part for me? It seems to be missing from my copy.How did one join the union? If you can join anything, you can dis-join. And please, spare me the Lincoln crap that is coming. He suspended habeus-corpus, imprisoned the opposition leaders without charging them or trying them, freed some slaves, and after the war stated that blacks should all go colonize central america because they were notequal to whites. He isn't the romanticized civil rights champion everyone makes him out to be.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 12:35 PM ----------


No way am I getting into this morass again. :ols:

but as an aside, I'm guessing that Popeman's stuff about simply calling a state convention to secede comes from the Articles of Confederation, the weak form of government we had before we ratified the Constitution.Yes. And if you can dissolve one union, replace it with another by voting at a convention, you can surely dissolve that union and replace it at convention. It ain't rocket science people. The FFs planned a govt that could be dissolved. We can amend the Constitution with a simple vote....

[zoony]

If you're so proud of where you come, root for your state's college football team.

Wait, that might be tough in VA.

[Predicto]

[/COLOR]Yes. And if you can dissolve one union, replace it with another by voting at a convention, you can surely dissolve that union and replace it at convention. It ain't rocket science people. The FFs planned a govt that could be dissolved. We can amend the Constitution with a simple vote....

Umm, no. That does not follow at all. When you sign up for a binding contract, there are benefits and consequences. The states bought into a package deal in 1789, and it had consequences.

The FF's may have planned a govt that ultimately could be dissolved, but they deliberately made it very hard to do so. That is why amending the constitution is such a PITA. One state or a minority of states cannot amend the Federal Constitution. Likewise, one state or a minority of states cannot pull out of the union. If a NATIONAL constitutional convention had been convened, and had voted to let the Confederate States pull out, then the secession would have been legal. But that didn't happen.

[Destino]

If you're so proud of where you come, root for your state's college football team.

Wait, that might be tough in VA.
I don't know there are a lot of Vtech fans all over the place.

[Larry]

No matter what people say about this argument, for many many people, it is a matter of heritage, not secession.

OK, so which heritage?

The heritage of rebelling against the United States, and the Constitution, because you're worried that the evil feds are gonna take away your slaves?

The way it's associated with the KKK?

Or maybe the heritage of it being flown over the state capital of (Alabama?) to signify the state's support for segregated schools? (A heritage continuing to this day.)

One thing's a fact: Whatever heritage is being celebrated, it isn't American heritage, or else they'd be flying this flag:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us.gif

[Destino]

Umm, no. That does not follow at all. When you sign up for a binding contract, there are benefits and consequences. The states bought into a package deal in 1789, and it had consequences.

The FF's may have planned a govt that ultimately could be dissolved, but they deliberately made it very hard to do so. That is why amending the constitution is such a PITA. One state or a minority of states cannot amend the Federal Constitution. Likewise, one state or a minority of states cannot pull out of the union. If a NATIONAL constitutional convention had been convened, and had voted to let the Confederate States pull out, then the secession would have been legal. But that didn't happen.

2/3rd majority in both houses of congress to propose a change and approval for 3/4ths of all states to approve it right? My civics is a bit rusty but that's what I remember.

[Dan T.]

Here's the bus the guy drives:
http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/59/41/collegehumor.fbc7d26aa2640acf0941674297a37ee3.jpg

[DjTj]

How did one join the union? If you can join anything, you can dis-join. And please, spare me the Lincoln crap that is coming. He suspended habeus-corpus, imprisoned the opposition leaders without charging them or trying them, freed some slaves, and after the war stated that blacks should all go colonize central america because they were notequal to whites. He isn't the romanticized civil rights champion everyone makes him out to be.That's not true at all. Somebody tell Albert Haynesworth that all he needs to do is dis-join the Redskins, and all his problems will be solved. When agreements are made between parties, whether individuals, corporations, or states, they usually don't allow one side to just walk away whenever they want. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows states to unilaterally join and leave.


Yes. And if you can dissolve one union, replace it with another by voting at a convention, you can surely dissolve that union and replace it at convention. It ain't rocket science people. The FFs planned a govt that could be dissolved. We can amend the Constitution with a simple vote....Yes, of course we could amend the Constitution to allow states to leave, but that would require three-fourths of the states to agree, not just a single state.

The Supreme Court ruled on secession and found that it was not something that a state could do on its own:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html

[zoony]

Dan, the air conditioner stuck in the back window makes that picture just perfect :ols:

[Larry]

How did one join the union? If you can join anything, you can dis-join. And please, spare me the Lincoln crap that is coming. He suspended habeus-corpus, imprisoned the opposition leaders without charging them or trying them, freed some slaves, and after the war stated that blacks should all go colonize central america because they were notequal to whites. He isn't the romanticized civil rights champion everyone makes him out to be.

Wow. What a long-winded, ranting, way to say "It's not in there, I made it up."

[Spartacus87]

OK, so which heritage?

The heritage of rebelling against the United States, and the Constitution, because you're worried that the evil feds are gonna take away your slaves?

The way it's associated with the KKK?

Or maybe the heritage of it being flown over the state capital of (Alabama?) to signify the state's support for segregated schools? (A heritage continuing to this day.)

One thing's a fact: Whatever heritage is being celebrated, it isn't American heritage, or else they'd be flying this flag:
Yeah, that was my next question.

Again, this "heritage," or "Southern Pride," or whatever other term is used for to describe this feeling...that's represented through the Confederate flag how in particular?

[zoony]

When I see a Confederate flag, I honestly don't think about secession, slaves, or war. Around here, it's just a symbol for the South. You're saying you're Southern and proud of it. When I see people with Confederate flags, I don't think, "That person wants to secede from the US and reinstitute slaves, and he also hates all black people." I think, "He's from the South."



born in the south and I live farther south than you do. That thing doesn't represent me, or any other educated non-toothless inbred person I know. I resent the notion that it does.

And why are you so proud of the South? Region to region and state to state it couldn't be more different. If you're proud to be from Richmond, just wear an "IHeartRichmond" shirt or something.



....

[TD_washingtonredskins]

And why are you so proud of the South? Region to region and state to state it couldn't be more different. If you're proud to be from Richmond, just wear an "IHeartRichmond" shirt or something.
....

:ols:

Does that mean I have to get rid of my "Thank God I'm a Mid-Atlantic Boy" shirt?

[ZoEd]

Had a similar situation at Keesler AFB around 2000. New squadron Commander comes in, African American, looks out his window and sees a confederate flag license plate on the front of a truck parked across the street. Since the parking lot was used by "his" employees he demanded one of his Senior Enlisted go tell them to remove the license plate. Well hell, that went over real well. By the end of the week there was about 12 to 15 vehicles parked facing his window and every one of them had a rebel flag license plate attached to the front. Things got pretty heated, threats of termination were made, union got involved, one guy hired an attorney. When it was all said and done, we had to plant a line of shrubs between the street and the parking lot so the Commander couldn't see the front of the vehicles parked there.

Agree or disagree but people have rights, just like someone wanting to fly a Malcom X flag can fly one too. I used to support the flying of the flag a hell of a lot more than I do today thanks to a couple of folks here on ES who helped me "see the light" but I still don't personally find it offensive, but understand why some do.

I agree with Chicken Fried, I don't think the vast majority of the people who proudly display it do so to offend anyone or because they're racist or think slavery was a good idea. It's merely a symbol for the way of life they choose to live and well, quite frankly as ignorant as some people (zoony) think these people are, it's still their right. There's a lot of ignorant things that people do that offends me but I don't go around chosing to take up a cause against it. Its a ****ing flag, who gives a ****? "Gay and proud" offends me, the people who choose to rag on people who are religious and call them stupid for believing in God offend me, but I don't beat up homosexuals or egg evolutionists cars. It's okay to be different and have different opinions, it's what makes our country great.

Recently, we were doing room inspections and I went into a young Airmans room and found that he had a blanket with a rebel flag on it, a rebel flag hanging from the bed and hat with a rebel flag on it as well, proudly displayed on his bed. I had to "mentor" this young man and explain to him that although its his right to display these things in the privacy of his own home but in the environment he was in, a dormitory where he doesn't really have much privacy, its not the most appropriate thing for him to do. I also explained to him that the USAF is an extremely professional military orginization and we live at higher standards and he might want to reconsider his outlook on what the flag means to him and also how its interpreted by other people. I told him to take the flags down and stow them away until he leaves the dorm. BTW, most military installation don't allow flags of any kind to be flown in dormitories or in base housing and that decision is left up to the Base Commander to determine that policy.

[pjfootballer]

The politically correct times we live in. I support someone's right to say something that offends me in the form of a bumper sticker on their own vehicle.

Yeah, I didn't agree with it. I think most bumber stickers are offensive just for the sheer stupidity and not necessarily what they represent. I don't put them on my vehicles. If I ever had kids, I don't even want to put their school honor roll crap on my vehicles.

[Henry]

How did one join the union? If you can join anything, you can dis-join. And please, spare me the Lincoln crap that is coming. He suspended habeus-corpus, imprisoned the opposition leaders without charging them or trying them, freed some slaves, and after the war stated that blacks should all go colonize central america because they were notequal to whites. He isn't the romanticized civil rights champion everyone makes him out to be.

I was actually happy to see Lincoln was left out of this discussion. However, since you brought him up, I guess I should point out that Jefferson Davis also suspended Habeas Corpus. Jefferson Davis executed loyalists without trial. We still name roads after him down here. Go figure. :)

It was a war. Extreme measures were taken on both sides. That does not mean that those actions would have been taken had the war not occurred. That does not mean that the men who took those actions were evil men.

And no, Lincoln didn't state anything after the war, because he was shot dead before the war ended. Watch out for that mis-information. :) Voluntary colonization was one idea Lincoln supported, but he had given that idea up before the close of the war. It was too expensive, impractical, there weren't enough volunteers and it wasn't as politically necessary as he had initially thought. Also, Lincoln did free all of the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was the first step, but the other steps (such as the 13th Amendment) were in motion before he died. That he was killed before the process was finished does not mean he didn't make it happen in the first place.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Yeah, I didn't agree with it. I think most bumber stickers are offensive just for the sheer stupidity and not necessarily what they represent. I don't put them on my vehicles. If I ever had kids, I don't even want to put their school honor roll crap on my vehicles.

I KNOW you have these though...

http://www.wmishops.com/magento/media/catalog/product/cache/52/image/298x/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/s/u/suvfamilyzoom-lg.jpg

[hawgboy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYxAiK6VnXw

Check out 3000's belt buckle about 17 seconds in....so is this yet another example of "only WE can use that word, symbol, ect!"?

I seem to recall Little Jon rocking a Stars n Bars shirt in a video once as well....oh well I don't really care as I've never been to the South let alone repped it in any way...I'm more offended by Big Boi's jersey.

[pjfootballer]

I KNOW you have these though...

http://www.wmishops.com/magento/media/catalog/product/cache/52/image/298x/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/s/u/suvfamilyzoom-lg.jpg

Oh god, those are even worse. I have my wife and her mother who lives with us. No kids, no pets. My wife is from Peru and in her culture, the kids take care of the parents when they get older, that's why her mother lives with us.

[Henry]

I KNOW you have these though...

http://www.wmishops.com/magento/media/catalog/product/cache/52/image/298x/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/s/u/suvfamilyzoom-lg.jpg


Those stupid things offend me far more than the Confederate flag does. :)

[hawgboy]

^ I saw one where one of the kids was an angel...talk about instant buzzkill at a stoplight...

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Those stupid things offend me far more than the Confederate flag does. :)

I'm with you guys...I can't stand them!

[ZoEd]

I KNOW you have these though...

http://www.wmishops.com/magento/media/catalog/product/cache/52/image/298x/17f82f742ffe127f42dca9de82fb58b1/s/u/suvfamilyzoom-lg.jpg

I recently saw one of these that was funny! It said "The Ass family" and below every person in the family it had a name, Lazy, Dumb, Stupid, Fat, Jack....too damn funny.

[Predicto]

2/3rd majority in both houses of congress to propose a change and approval for 3/4ths of all states to approve it right? My civics is a bit rusty but that's what I remember.

US Constitution, Article V, provides:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress[.]

So, if the Legislatures of 2/3rd of the states call for it, you can have a new constititonal convention. As a nation we have never done that yet - and the Confederate States didn't even try to do it before they fired on Fort Sumter.

[Popeman38]

I was actually happy to see Lincoln was left out of this discussion. However, since you brought him up, I guess I should point out that Jefferson Davis also suspended Habeas Corpus. Jefferson Davis executed loyalists without trial. We still name roads after him down here. Go figure. :)Well, Jeff Davis didn't believe he was bound by the Constitution, you know, because they didn't recognize Union authority. So technically, he didn't break any laws.
It was a war. Extreme measures were taken on both sides. That does not mean that those actions would have been taken had the war not occurred. That does not mean that the men who took those actions were evil men.Funny, I don't think Bush was extended the same line of reasoning. It was war. Things happen. It is only acceptable in hindsight. If you agree with the politics of that person. But hey, why bother with truth?
And no, Lincoln didn't state anything after the war, because he was shot dead before the war ended. Watch out for that mis-information. :) Voluntary colonization was one idea Lincoln supported, but he had given that idea up before the close of the war. It was too expensive, impractical, there weren't enough volunteers and it wasn't as politically necessary as he had initially thought. Also, Lincoln did free all of the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was the first step, but the other steps (such as the 13th Amendment) were in motion before he died. That he was killed before the process was finished does not mean he didn't make it happen in the first place.I meant post-proclamation. I know he died. My bad.

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 02:10 PM ----------


That's not true at all. Somebody tell Albert Haynesworth that all he needs to do is dis-join the Redskins, and all his problems will be solved. When agreements are made between parties, whether individuals, corporations, or states, they usually don't allow one side to just walk away whenever they want. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows states to unilaterally join and leave.

Yes, of course we could amend the Constitution to allow states to leave, but that would require three-fourths of the states to agree, not just a single state.

The Supreme Court ruled on secession and found that it was not something that a state could do on its own:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.htmlWell the CSA did not recognize the authority of the Union Supreme Court. Also, secession was commonly used by states to prevent what they viewed as tyrannical position of the Federal Govt. So obviously, EVERYONE thought secession was an option back then.

[JimboDaMan]

Believe it or not, I agree with you. I think his Freedom to Express should allow the flying of this flag on his personal property. Maybe the school could have asked him to stow it when he was on school grounds, but otherwise, he should have the right to declare this. It's not such an outrageous symbol or such a violently inciteful symbol that he needs to be immediately banned from public useage.

(Even though it declares him a traitor and hater of the United States of America ;) )Pretty much agree about the private property, although I'm a bit stronger on the employer's right to tell him to keep it off school grounds and get rid of him if he does not.

Interesting to compare this to the Wisconsin threads and see if right-to-work advocates are claiming this guy should sue for being fired.

[Henry]

Well, Jeff Davis didn't believe he was bound by the Constitution, you know, because they didn't recognize Union authority. So technically, he didn't break any laws.

You mean, technically he broke all of them so who cares about the specifics? :)

My point is that the evil the South claims (and still apparently claims) that it was fighting against, it was in many cases practicing itself. Why? Because it was fighting a war.


Funny, I don't think Bush was extended the same line of reasoning. It was war. Things happen. It is only acceptable in hindsight. If you agree with the politics of that person. But hey, why bother with truth?

Bush wasn't fighting the same war. It wasn't even close. Had a third of the country declared independence, massed an army on our newfound border, and attempted to coerce even more of the country to side with them, I think I'd have cut Bush a little more slack. :)

However, if your point here is that Lincoln was not perfect and did not make every single correct decision, well, point taken.

[Predicto]

Well, Jeff Davis didn't believe he was bound by the Constitution, you know, because they didn't recognize Union authority. So technically, he didn't break any laws....

Well the CSA did not recognize the authority of the Union Supreme Court.

LOL. I have decided that I no longer recognize the laws of the USA. Does that make me correct... or delusional?

---------- Post added March-10th-2011 at 01:25 PM ----------


Bush wasn't fighting the same war. It wasn't even close. Had a third of the country declared independence, massed an army on our newfound border, and attempted to coerce even more of the country to side with them, I think I'd have cut Bush a little more slack. :)

Oh, I don't know. I think if we judge George W. Bush by 1860s standards, he comes out A-Ok. Of course, that's a pretty damn low threshhold.

[Teller]

Thankfully I have other skills besides driving a bus. I won't be out of work long. :)

[Predicto]

Thankfully I have other skills besides driving a bus. I won't be out of work long. :)

Maybe you can sell flags!

:poke:



:movefast:

[Chicken Fried]

OK, so which heritage?

The heritage of rebelling against the United States, and the Constitution, because you're worried that the evil feds are gonna take away your slaves?

The way it's associated with the KKK?

Or maybe the heritage of it being flown over the state capital of (Alabama?) to signify the state's support for segregated schools? (A heritage continuing to this day.)

One thing's a fact: Whatever heritage is being celebrated, it isn't American heritage, or else they'd be flying this flag:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us.gif
Being proud of the South doesn't mean you can't be proud of America. You can still take pride in Southern culture. It doesn't have to do with seceding. Half the Southerners don't even know their own history. An American flag represents Southern culture, but also northern, mid-west, as well as that chunk of coast out west that is often included as one of the 50 states. The South is just different. It's a different bunch of people. They speak differently, have different customs, have different behavior, etc. I don't see why you get so upset about this.

[Henry]

Thankfully I have other skills besides driving a bus. I won't be out of work long. :)

:ols::ols::ols:

I believe we can now close the thread. :)

[Thiebear]

So you can yell God wanted you dead because America loves fags at a funeral.
But you can not have an ornament on the truck that takes you to and from your work.

I know its a private issue but it does seem a bit intolerent.
kinda like firing for an Hope sticker with the Presidents seal on it.

[Predicto]

Half the Southerners don't even know their own history.

Now this I can agree with. :)

[Henry]

Being proud of the South doesn't mean you can't be proud of America. You can still take pride in Southern culture. It doesn't have to do with seceding. Half the Southerners don't even know their own history. An American flag represents Southern culture, but also northern, mid-west, as well as that chunk of coast out west that is often included as one of the 50 states. The South is just different. It's a different bunch of people. They speak differently, have different customs, have different behavior, etc. I don't see why you get so upset about this.

Because for the first 200 or so years of this country's existence Southern Culture was thoroughly identified with a heavy dose of institutional racism? If Southern Pride and Southern culture means something different now, then perhaps it might be a good idea to not use as it's symbol a flag that was flown when that racism was so pervasive that the South was compelled to separate itself from the rest of the country in order to ensure it's continuance?

[Chicken Fried]

And why are you so proud of the South? Region to region and state to state it couldn't be more different. If you're proud to be from Richmond, just wear an "IHeartRichmond" shirt or something.
.

I hate Richmond half the time. I don't really like it to be honest. I actually don't live in the city either. The land around the major cities is what I take the pride in. You're right in that each region is different, but they're all part of a culture that's just different and that I like.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Because for the first 200 or so years of this country's existence Southern Culture was thoroughly identified with a heavy dose of institutional racism? If Southern Pride and Southern culture means something different now, then perhaps it might be a good idea to not use as it's symbol a flag that was flown when that racism was so pervasive that the South was compelled to separate itself from the rest of the country in order to ensure it's continuance?

My boy's wicked smart!

[Popeman38]

LOL. I have decided that I no longer recognize the laws of the USA. Does that make me correct... or delusional?Was secession used as a tool by the states, with regularity, before the Civil War?

[DjTj]

Was secession used as a tool by the states, with regularity, before the Civil War?No.

[Chicken Fried]

Because for the first 200 or so years of this country's existence Southern Culture was thoroughly identified with a heavy dose of institutional racism? If Southern Pride and Southern culture means something different now, then perhaps it might be a good idea to not use as it's symbol a flag that was flown when that racism was so pervasive that the South was compelled to separate itself from the rest of the country in order to ensure it's continuance?

I find it sad that you associate 19th century racism with the South and somehow ignore northern racism. Northern racism was extremely bad during the war, and it's one of, if not the major reason that most northerners didn't want blacks to be freed right away. They expected the freed blacks would come settle up north and live in the same cities as them. If you want to ban the Confederate flag because of racism, then you also have to ban the American flag which of course we will not and should not do.

[Popeman38]

The Supreme Court ruled on secession and found that it was not something that a state could do on its own:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.htmlThis decision was issued in 1869. The Civil War was 1861-1865. Apparently President Buchanan, and President Lincoln, viewed secession as legal. To issue a ruling after conclusion of the war and during reconstruction is a bit revisionist, don't you think?

[twa]

Pretty much agree about the private property, although I'm a bit stronger on the employer's right to tell him to keep it off school grounds and get rid of him if he does not.

Interesting to compare this to the Wisconsin threads and see if right-to-work advocates are claiming this guy should sue for being fired.

Right to work does not mean right to behave,dress or even speak as you wish.

Not a right to work issue,if anything it would be a 1st issue.

[Popeman38]

No.Yes, it was.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109317/
But the legal situation wasn't always so clear cut. Before the Civil War, the legality of secession was an open question, and Southerners would frequently threaten that their states might ditch the fledgling nation.

[Bang]

http://www.1uptravel.com/flag/images/r/rel-kr-b.gif

This is an ancient hindu symbol for a lucky charm or a special object.
Fly it from the back of your truck and see how tired you get of having to explain that to angry people who refuse to do business with you, or worse.
And also note that all your explanations won't mean jack to them, because that symbol has been permanently associated with something else that most people find heinous.
(You'll also note that the freaks who DON'T find what it represents heinous will suddenly feel a lot more comfortable with you, maybe even consider you a friend simply based on what they perceive from your chosen symbol.)

Same as the confederate flag. Yay, you've got the right to fly it, and to you it means something else.
Nobody cares what it means to you.

~Bang

[DjTj]

Yes, it was.
http://www.slate.com/id/2109317/No, it wasn't. Sure, some people talked about secession, and people still talk about secession today, but your statement is wrong.
Was secession used as a tool by the states, with regularity, before the Civil War?Secession was never used by any state before the Civil War.


This decision was issued in 1869. The Civil War was 1861-1865. Apparently President Buchanan, and President Lincoln, viewed secession as legal. To issue a ruling after conclusion of the war and during reconstruction is a bit revisionist, don't you think?The Supreme Court usually takes some time to get an issue and rule on it. Segregation was found unconstitutional after it had been going on for a century. DC's handgun ban was found unconstitutional after it had been enforced for decades. That's the way the courts work.

Lincoln obviously thought that secession was illegal, since he fought a war about it.

Here is what he said at his inauguration in 1861:

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the union of these States is perpetual....It follows....that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I, therefore, consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken.

Before Congress later that year:

The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this they can only do so against law and by revolution.

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/secunlawful.htm

Buchanan also addressed this issue in the 1860 State of the Union:

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.

Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with the greatest deliberation and care it was submitted to conventions of the people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies, composed of the first men of the country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its advocates maintained that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any other country it never occurred to any individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution! The truth is that it was not until many years after the origin of the Federal Government that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who in his message of the 16th of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress, employs the following language:

The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=946

[Teller]

Because for the first 200 or so years of this country's existence Southern Culture was thoroughly identified with a heavy dose of institutional racism? If Southern Pride and Southern culture means something different now, then perhaps it might be a good idea to not use as it's symbol a flag that was flown when that racism was so pervasive that the South was compelled to separate itself from the rest of the country in order to ensure it's continuance?

Personally, I don't think that most of the people who display that flag today see it that way. I think, for them, it's just a symbol of pride in a way of life, and something to rally around. I mean, when you get right down to it, there's no group out there that's more popular (and politically correct) to bash. Afterall, we all "know" that everyone south of NOVA is a stupid, inbred, tobacco-chewin, wrasslin- and racin-lovin dip****.

It's no different than any other group that's been persecuted throughout our history (real or perceived.) They all adopt a slogan, a flag or a symbol. If not the rebel flag, what would you have Southerners choose?

[DjTj]

t's no different than any other group that's been persecuted throughout our history (real or perceived.) They all adopt a slogan, a flag or a symbol. If not the rebel flag, what would you have Southerners choose?White hoods? :dunce:

:movefast:

[Teller]

White hoods? :dunce:

:movefast:

:ols:

Seriously though, per capita, you won't find more rebel flags than at a NASCAR race. And during my trip to the confederate capital for a race in 2009, there was a surprisingly diverse fanbase in attendance, and no issues.

[Bang]

If not the rebel flag, what would you have Southerners choose?

http://s7d5.scene7.com/is/image/wasserstrom/flag

How about this one?

~Bang

[twa]

How about this one?

~Bang

I like it....not sure ya'll will when we subjugate you though.:pfft:

[Henry]

I find it sad that you associate 19th century racism with the South and somehow ignore northern racism. Northern racism was extremely bad during the war, and it's one of, if not the major reason that most northerners didn't want blacks to be freed right away. They expected the freed blacks would come settle up north and live in the same cities as them. If you want to ban the Confederate flag because of racism, then you also have to ban the American flag which of course we will not and should not do.

I hate to point this out, but institutional racism in the south continued well past the 19th century. Government-backed racism was rooted in southern culture until a little over 40 years ago. If things are different now, and I believe you when they say they are, that's wonderful. But again, if there is some special kind of pride in being a southerner today, why use a flag that was designed specifically for a time when the south fought a war against the rest of the country in order to keep their slaves? Are we moving beyond the past or not? What exactly are we proud of?

This isn't about the North. There's no widespread belief in 'Northern Pride.' There's no symbol that specifically represents a northern section of the country. If there were, we could debate it. But the guy in the article wants to fly Lee's battle flag, so here we are.

[Teller]

I like it too. And hell, why stop there. Why not just take away all the other stupid symbols people rally around. Can you imagine? No more donkeys or elephants, we're all Americans, right? No more St. Paddy's Day crap. No more rainbow flags. No more of any of it. Let's all be Americans, and see how that works out.

The theory is a great one, and one I support 100%. The practice simply won't work.

[Bang]

I like it....not sure ya'll will when we subjugate you though.:pfft:

Zounds! These Southerners have poor manners, I declare!

~Bing

[Larry]

This decision was issued in 1869. The Civil War was 1861-1865. Apparently President Buchanan, and President Lincoln, viewed secession as legal. To issue a ruling after conclusion of the war and during reconstruction is a bit revisionist, don't you think?

As opposed to claiming that the US Constitution allows secession, that the states regularly seceded from the union before the Civil War, and that Lincoln thought it was legal?

Damn, it's terrible the way everybody in this thread but you is altering the past, isn't it?

[Henry]

Personally, I don't think that most of the people who display that flag today see it that way. I think, for them, it's just a symbol of pride in a way of life, and something to rally around. I mean, when you get right down to it, there's no group out there that's more popular (and politically correct) to bash. Afterall, we all "know" that everyone south of NOVA is a stupid, inbred, tobacco-chewin, wrasslin- and racin-lovin dip****.

It's no different than any other group that's been persecuted throughout our history (real or perceived.) They all adopt a slogan, a flag or a symbol. If not the rebel flag, what would you have Southerners choose?

Believe it or not, I get that. :)

But my post was an answer to 'I don't see why using that flag to represent southern pride upsets people'

[Popeman38]

No, it wasn't. Sure, some people talked about secession, and people still talk about secession today, but your statement is wrong.

Secession was never used by any state before the Civil War.Secession was used as a tool of the states when they thought the Fed Govt overstepped her bounds. I did not say that the states seceded. They threatened to secede, which served as a reminder to the Fed Govt that it was restricted. It was threatened many times before the Civil War.

[Teller]

Believe it or not, I get that. :)

But my post was an answer to 'I don't see why using that flag to represent southern pride upsets people'

Likewise, I get that. Believe it or not. :)

[Popeman38]

As opposed to claiming that the US Constitution allows secession, that the states regularly seceded from the union before the Civil War, and that Lincoln thought it was legal?

Damn, it's terrible the way everybody in this thread but you is altering the past, isn't it?Larry, you are the last person in this thread to lecture anyone. You twist more than anyone in the Tailgate.

1) I never stated that states regularly seceded from the Union. I stated they used secession as a toll when they thought the Fed Govt overstepped her bounds.

2) Until the 14th Amendment was passed, you could read the Constitution and take away that there was nothing preventing a state from dissolving the allegiance to the USA. In fact, there are a plethora of references out there that support that, including the couple I posted in this thread. A quick Google search will reveal plenty of reading, by respected authors.

3) Everyone needs to think 1860's, not 2011. We are talking historically, not present. Anyone claiming secession now is whacked out of their minds.

[Burgold]

3) Everyone needs to think 1860's, not 2011. We are talking historically, not present. Anyone claiming secession now is whacked out of their minds.

Well, except that when most view the Confederate flag they are viewing it through a 2011 lens and not an 1860's one. If Southerners are looking at the Confederate Flag through an 1860's lens and that's what they mean by Southern Pride then we do have something to worry about.

[Chicken Fried]

I hate to point this out, but institutional racism in the south continued well past the 19th century. Government-backed racism was rooted in southern culture until a little over 40 years ago.
How is that relevant to what the flag symbolizes? At the time, the entire country was racist.

But again, if there is some special kind of pride in being a southerner today, why use a flag that was designed specifically for a time when the south fought a war against the rest of the country in order to keep their slaves?
I'm not getting into yet another debate on the causes of the war, but the reason is probably because the South doesn't have another flag to use.

Are we moving beyond the past or not? What exactly are we proud of?
I've already explained. Southern culture is different, and we like it.

[zoony]

I live in the south, and I'd prefer not to be associated with South Carolina, Texas, and most of Louisiana. Anyone who does hasn't spent much time there :ols:
(those are just jokes. Really, lovely places. People are great. Love you all)

this entire idea of a symbol of the south is just silly. Why not a symbol for the west? Because you know... Utah and Washington have so much in common...

[Popeman38]

Well, except that when most view the Confederate flag they are viewing it through a 2011 lens and not an 1860's one. If Southerners are looking at the Confederate Flag through an 1860's lens and that's what they mean by Southern Pride then we do have something to worry about.I was referring to the off-topic Civil War era **** I started. Which I will end now to prevent further thread hijack. :ols:

[Koolblue13]

I just gave away 2 of my favorite T shirts because Skynard puts rebel flags on everything and it just didn't feel right wearing them.

I remember having a conversation on here a while back about Jesse James and his "nazi" connection. The rebel flag inspires the same hateful feelings in people and that's not what I'm about anymore.

[Teller]

The rebel flag inspires the same hateful feelings in people and that's not what I'm about anymore.

Nor were they, as "The Ballad of Curtis Loewe" will attest.

[MrSilverMaC]

this entire idea of a symbol of the south is just silly. Why not a symbol for the west? Because you know... Utah and Washington have so much in common...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_k85etgn6DbM/TK4q2HtWHvI/AAAAAAAABpY/QDKIzr-e65E/s320/tupac.jpg

:)

[SC_RedskinsFan]

I have no use for the rebel flag at all.....

[Larry]

Larry, you are the last person in this thread to lecture anyone. You twist more than anyone in the Tailgate.

Back it up.

I've pointed out three completely fictional claims you've made in this very thread. Find three from me ever.


. . . secession was authorized by the Constitution. . .


. . . secession was commonly used by states to prevent what they viewed as tyrannical position of the Federal Govt. So obviously, EVERYONE thought secession was an option back then.


. . . President Lincoln viewed secession as legal.

[Stew]

Personally, I don't think that most of the people who display that flag today see it that way. I think, for them, it's just a symbol of pride in a way of life, and something to rally around. I mean, when you get right down to it, there's no group out there that's more popular (and politically correct) to bash. Afterall, we all "know" that everyone south of NOVA is a stupid, inbred, tobacco-chewin, wrasslin- and racin-lovin dip****.

It's no different than any other group that's been persecuted throughout our history (real or perceived.) They all adopt a slogan, a flag or a symbol. If not the rebel flag, what would you have Southerners choose?


I live in Civil War Country. You ask what else can Southerners use as a sign of their unwavering beliefs during the Civil War? I have two answers that Civil War Southerners currently use.
1. The Springfield Musket. it was teh firearm that the majority of the South used to defend their land and their beliefs. Brothers killed their own brother with this weapon to defend their view of what was right.
http://www.uniondb.com/images/musket_014_1.jpg

2. The Southern Military Soldier Cap. Reproductions have a confederate flag screen printed on them, but originals looked something like this.
http://www.thehatco.com/media/Novelty_Hats/Confederate_Kepi_MI.jpg
notice they utilize the Springfield Musket as well?

[Predicto]

Why can't a symbol of Southern pride have nothing at all to do with the Confederacy? Why bring that horrible can of worms into every discussion, and then be all surprised when people view your symbol in a negative way (as they always do).

Why isn't Southern Pride represented by a picture of a Thoroughbred Horse, or a bottle of Jack (good call sacase) or a portrait of William Faulkner, or a beautiful golf course, or a big old Bass, or a plate of BBQ? Why does it have to be this specific flag, the one directly associated with segregation, the one that you KNOW pisses everyone off?

The answer, I suspect, is because pissing people off and feeling victimized is an integral part of the deal. :whoknows:

[Larry]

I live in Civil War Country. You ask what else can Southerners use as a sign of their unwavering beliefs during the Civil War? I have two answers that Civil War Southerners currently use.
1. The Springfield Musket. it was teh firearm that the majority of the South used to defend their land and their beliefs. Brothers killed their own brother with this weapon to defend their view of what was right.
http://www.uniondb.com/images/musket_014_1.jpg

2. The Southern Military Soldier Cap. Reproductions have a confederate flag screen printed on them, but originals looked something like this.
http://www.thehatco.com/media/Novelty_Hats/Confederate_Kepi_MI.jpg
notice they utilize the Springfield Musket as well?

I think the question you're trying to answer is "how can southerners say they're proud of starting the Civil War?"

I think the question h_h was asking was "how can southerners show pride in being southern without endorsing the Civil War?"

(I've tried not to answer h_h's question, because all I can think of are:

1) Sweat Tea
2) And a bunch of redneck jokes.

And the first one is really tough to make into a t-shirt or bumper sticker or flag. And I don't think his question really deserves the second.

[thebluefood]

I need to get one of those.

I was just thinking the same thing. Someone, make this happen NOW! :ols:

To echo the statements of some of the other posters, there's probably something in his contract that said he couldn't have symbols like that on the bus; but I don't think he should've been sacked over it. I don't like the rebel flag either, but it's not like he was picking kids up in a klan uniform.

[Stew]

I think the question you're trying to answer is "how can southerners say they're proud of starting the Civil War?"

I think the question h_h was asking was "how can southerners show pride in being southern without endorsing the Civil War?"

(I've tried not to answer h_h's question, because all I can think of are:

1) Sweat Tea
2) And a bunch of redneck jokes.

And the first one is really tough to make into a t-shirt or bumper sticker or flag. And I don't think his question really deserves the second.


I was just merely stating what Civil War hobbiest's in my area have replaced their Confederate Flags with. I don't know that any Southerner is "proud" of starting the Civil War. I think some are proud that their ancestors stood up for what they believed in at the time(right or wrong), but i don't know of any that are proud of being the spark of the Civil War.

I see where you are coming from, something non Civil War related, that can act as an Icon of the South. From my observation of the area I live in, most of the people that still live here, tie the "South" to the Civil War era, just not the flag anymore. The rifle and hat havent been exploited by racist groups the way that the flag has been.

Though not tangible, when I think of the South, I think of Courtesy among the people and manners in front of strangers. that's just my opinion though, inferred from observations in the community I live in.

[sacase]

10 pages about someone flying a southern flag on their POV. Really? I used to get all mad about it when I saw people with them. I thought getting mad about seeing it was the correct reaction. Now I have learned...who cares? It doesn't affect me in any way. Sports team flag, southern flag, gay pride flag, its all really meaningless. Let the dude fly his flag on his POV.

[Larry]

Though not tangible, when I think of the South, I think of Courtesy among the people and manners in front of strangers. that's just my opinion though, inferred from observations in the community I live in.

JFK once referred to Washington as "A city of Northern charm and Southern efficiency".

[thebluefood]

10 pages about someone flying a southern flag on their POV. Really? I used to get all mad about it when I saw people with them. I thought getting mad about seeing it was the correct reaction. Now I have learned...who cares? It doesn't affect me in any way. Sports team flag, southern flag, gay pride flag, its all really meaningless. Let the dude fly his flag on his POV.

But that would require people to be open minded and reasonable.

[Predicto]

Frankly, honoring the participants in the Civil War struggle is in some ways not even the problem.

The Battle Flag was not the overriding symbol of the Confederacy - but it WAS the overriding symbol of the opposition to racial integration in the 1950s and 60s. That was a lot more recent and had virtually nothing to do with tariffs or any other genuine states rights grievances. It was just racism, pure and simple.

When you display that flag, that is the message you are sending. "I stand with Bull Conner, not with Martin Luther King." It may not be fair, it may not be the message you want to send, but you are sending it anyway. :whoknows:

[Popeman38]

Back it up.You really want me to dig up your posting history? Sorry, ain't gonna do it. That would put me in danger of violating the call out rule.
I've pointed out three completely fictional claims you've made in this very thread. Find three from me ever.1) I have posted links to different articles from respected sources that clearly state that prior to the 14th Amend it was open to interpretation whether a state could legally secede.

2) I NEVER stated that states seceded, I stated states used secession when the Fed Govt overstepped their bounds. So you in fact failed to point that one out. You can't comprehend the difference, not my issue.

3) Lincoln said:
In January 1848,Lincoln(directly referring to Texas)said:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.
Lincoln said this in support of Texas seceding from Mexico.

[isle-hawg]

Nah, flying the confederate flag is celebrating treason. Even if you get away from the racial stuff it is celebrating the secession. The people who quit the Union, spilled their brother's blood and fought against the United States. Was there a Confederate flag prior to the Civil War? I'm for freedom of speech, but it's one of the most anti-U.S. symbols in the U.S. It celebrates our division and almost the destruction of the country by people who wanted to tear the U.S. apart. It's not Southern pride. It's rebel pride.

Following this logic celebrating the US flag is treason today to the UK flag is it not?

If any case then why is displaying the UK flag today in the US not treasonous in the US?

In both cases one group wanted to split from the other, and the group being separated from fought in a war to not allow it. In one case the Brits lost in the other the northerners prevailed.

[Stadium-Armory]

Following this logic celebrating the US flag is treason today to the UK flag is it not?

If any case then why is displaying the UK flag today in the US not treasonous in the US?

In both cases one group wanted to split from the other, and the group being separated from fought in a war to not allow it. In one case the Brits lost in the other the northerners prevailed.

And in both cases, the just side prevailed. That is, if you believe in American values - individual liberty and all that stuff.

[twa]

Manifest Destiny dude ;)

[PeterMP]

3) Lincoln said:
Lincoln said this in support of Texas seceding from Mexico.

Your mixing and matching terms. Texas didn't legally secede. They have a revolution to secede. Lincoln is talking about revolution. Not a legal secestion. Nobody has ever said that the south didn't have the right to have a revolution, but that doesn't mean they had a Constitutional right to secede.

"In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis) the separate issue of secession was also discussed. James Madison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison), often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution”, spoke out against secession as a constitutional right.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-17) In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Webster) congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification, Madison discussed “revolution” versus “secession”:

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-18)"




Also during this crisis, President Andrew Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson), in his “Proclamation to the People of South Carolina”, made the case for the perpetuity of the Union while also contrasting the differences between “revolution” and “secession”[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-19):

But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#cite_note-20)


Places like Texas and the south had a right to a revolution, that is an extra-Constitutional solution to the problem. Not a Constitutional right to secede.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

Texas had a right to forcibly, via revolution to secede from Mexico. That doesn't mean the Mexican laws (whatever basis of laws they had) gave them the right to secede.

Madison would have said the south had the God given right to secede forcibly. Not the Constitutional right to do so. Secession would have been extra-Constitutional.

[Zazzaro703]

Henry you mean you think this is politically motivated? :)

Where does it end? Scouring the parking lot for Pro Choice or Pro Life bumper stickers?

This is what i was gonna say. Where does it end? What if the principal was against the Redskins Logo thinking it was racist and one of us was fired for not scrapping it off our car? That's insane. I actually like when people have stuff on their car that i don't agree with. Just tells me to stay away from that person.

[Box76]

Most of us Southern Gentlemen couldn't give two squirts of piss if anyone likes our flag or not. Some have tried to take it but failed. It still flys high and proud and represents those who have given their life to protect their family and home. Unless you can show that every Confederate soldier owned or even believed in slavery then all this foolishness about a flag should stop. It represents the lives lost. Who actually thinks that every man who lined up on the front lines facing certain death thought about protecting their right to own a slave as justification to die?

[Henry]

How is that relevant to what the flag symbolizes? At the time, the entire country was racist.

Here's why:


Frankly, honoring the participants in the Civil War struggle is in some ways not even the problem.

The Battle Flag was not the overriding symbol of the Confederacy - but it WAS the overriding symbol of the opposition to racial integration in the 1950s and 60s. That was a lot more recent and had virtually nothing to do with tariffs or any other genuine states rights grievances. It was just racism, pure and simple.

When you display that flag, that is the message you are sending. "I stand with Bull Conner, not with Martin Luther King." It may not be fair, it may not be the message you want to send, but you are sending it anyway. :whoknows:

It's not just a happy coincidence that Georgia incorporated the Confederate battle flag into it's state flag in 1956, or that Alabama started flying the flag over it's state house in 1961, or that South Carolina did the same in 1962. Those states didn't mysteriously ignore their 'heritage' for 100 years. In the 50s and 60s the flag was resurrected specifically to be used as a symbol of resistance to desegregation.

Again I have to ask, if you want to display your regional pride, why insist on using a symbol that has so much historical baggage attached to it? You really don't get why this specific symbol upsets people in this country?

[Bang]

Again I have to ask, if you want to display your regional pride, why insist on using a symbol that has so much historical baggage attached to it? You really don't get why this specific symbol upsets people in this country?

Some people just need attention.

~Bang

[chipwhich]

Here's why:



It's not just a happy coincidence that Georgia incorporated the Confederate battle flag into it's state flag in 1956, or that Alabama started flying the flag over it's state house in 1961, or that South Carolina did the same in 1962. Those states didn't mysteriously ignore their 'heritage' for 100 years. In the 50s and 60s the flag was resurrected specifically to be used as a symbol of resistance to desegregation.

Again I have to ask, if you want to display your regional pride, why insist on using a symbol that has so much historical baggage attached to it? You really don't get why this specific symbol upsets people in this country?

I have only seen burned crosses as a child. 30 some odd years ago. That was in Tennessee. The Confed Flag was a staple there.

I can assure you from my opinion it wasn't out of a lack of racism.

White guy for the record.

[frostyj]

Why can't the confederate flag just be a symbol of Southern Hospitality or heritage? Yes, there are those asshats that like to display it as a negitive. But it is by far the minority. The south is different than the rest of the country, just like the west.
I for one like the confederate flag and my reasoning is, it looks good, it represents the 13 colonies and has the American colors. So if I fly it, you can judge me, and you will be wrong. And for those saying flying that flag is not part of American Heritage, you need to go back to school, it is, it may be a bad side, but it still is part of the USA.
There is a huge difference living below Richmond and above DC. Slower paced and more relaxed. I worked 12hrs a day when I lived in GA and had time to get errands done. In NVA, I work 8 hrs and cant seem to find time to take a ****, at times.

I'll prob, be ignored or flamed, no matter with either decision.

http://multicultural.syr.edu/photos/default/Image/confederate_flag.jpg

There is still racisim because we still choose to offset colors, when there are no polls that say blacks this and whites that, and orientals kill whales.
Just classify us a humans an be done with it. Then we will be one, but I doubt that will ever happen. The USA is prety much by far the LEAST racist of the rest of the world.
Have travel much of it, and we are doing well compared.

[Henry]

I don't think anyone here is saying it's not part of American heritage. Just that it may be on the bad side. :)

[thebluefood]

Yeah, the Confederate flag isn't a big deal to me. Sure, it's closely associated with one of the darkest moments in U.S. History; when the people that marched under it supported an agenda that subjected people to the worst kind of oppression.

But, it doesn't really register on my meter anymore because
A.) For a lot of people, it's a symbol of regional pride
B.) The CSA doesn't exist anymore

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRu0t8PQiNI5_UMPXsfMgpo4L775TEe5 aE9Zv4gtE6WUJokiyU1

A winnar is us :D

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Why can't the confederate flag just be a symbol of Southern Hospitality or heritage? .

It's not like the confederate flag existed before the Civil War. It wasn't just some southern pride flag. It was a flag that was created specifically for a treasonous government that was fighting--in large part--to save slavery. Find something else.


Semi-related story. I was stationed at Fort Lee for my AIT way down in southern Va. I get a weekend pass and go out with some buddies and then catch a cab back to base later on. The driver was this old white guy, probably in his 60's. So we get to the base and they stop us and do the little inspection. This was just a couple of months after 9/11 so things were still kinda tense. They get the driver to pop the trunk. Now I'm standing outside of the car just waiting for the guard--black dude btw--to do his thing. Next thing I know he starts pulling out framed photos from the trunk of the taxi. It was a bunch of pictures of old Klan meetings and cross burnings from like the 30's. Turn's to the driver and says "What the hell is this?" "Ah ain't nothing wrong with that, it's history." The guard starts staring me down and I got nothing to say. One of the biggest "oh my god :doh:" moments of my life.

[Burgold]

I for one like the confederate flag and my reasoning is, it looks good, it represents the 13 colonies and has the American colors. .

The Confederate flag represents the 13 colonies? It represented Mass and NY and Conn? Come on...


Following this logic celebrating the US flag is treason today to the UK flag is it not?


I already answered this. Yes, seceeding from Britain was an act of rebellion and an act of treason. The FFs acknowledged it. One of Franklin's more famous quotes was
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately." So yes, in the 1770's a flag for the U.S. represented treason.

The reason that the U.S. flag today is not treasonsous is that we won. The U.S. is a soverign nation. The reason flying the UK flag is not treasonous here is because over the last 200 years we have made friends and become allies with England. Even so, you see relatively few people fly the UK colors, not even with anglophiles who love and are nostalgic about Brit culture.

The Confederate Flag represents the rebels that lost. The guys who wanted to tear the U.S. in half and attempted to kill her. It symbolizes the bloodiest war in American History. I'm trying to steer clear of the racist side the flag, but it reps that too as others point out. Those sporting the Confederate flag are saluting the enemies of the U.S. even if they don't realize or acknowledge it.

[Larry]

You really want me to dig up your posting history? Sorry, ain't gonna do it. That would put me in danger of violating the call out rule.

You've already made the claim. And it's false. Back it up.


1) I have posted links to different articles from respected sources that clearly state that prior to the 14th Amend it was open to interpretation whether a state could legally secede.

In response to your claim that The Constitution stated that states had the right to secede, and specified the procedure for doing so, you quoted some guy's opinion that well, before the Constitution existed, states used a procedure to ratify the Constitution.

And your opinion that there's s principle that you've invented, that says that any agreement that has procedures for agreeing can be canceled, after agreement, by following the same procedure.


2) I NEVER stated that states seceded, I stated states used secession when the Fed Govt overstepped their bounds. So you in fact failed to point that one out. You can't comprehend the difference, not my issue.

You stated that states used secession all the time, and when called on it, responded with "well, they threatened to". And claimed that this proved that EVERYONE (your emphases) believed that it was allowed. (Actually, that's two claims, neither of which is true.)


3) Lincoln said:

Lincoln said this in support of Texas seceding from Mexico.

That's actually some pretty good support.

Granted, you have to weigh that against the fact that Lincoln went to war to prevent a different secession.

Perhaps his feelings on the issue were conflicted. :)

Still, please consider my complaint about your third claim to be retracted, since your third claim obviously isn't entirely untrue.

[Popeman38]

You've already made the claim. And it's false. Back it up. Larry, see the rest of your response. That is twisting enough.


In response to your claim that The Constitution stated that states had the right to secede, and specified the procedure for doing so, you quoted some guy's opinion that well, before the Constitution existed, states used a procedure to ratify the Constitution.

And your opinion that there's s principle that you've invented, that says that any agreement that has procedures for agreeing can be canceled, after agreement, by following the same procedure. I stated that before the 14th Amendment the Constitution left open the possibility for secession. I posted articles from respected sources stating that. What else do you want me to do? Resurrect one of the FF so he can tell you southern states felt they had the right to secede? I think it is fairly obvious they felt that waysince they held a convention and voted to secede.


You stated that states used secession all the time, and when called on it, responded with "well, they threatened to". And claimed that this proved that EVERYONE (your emphases) believed that it was allowed. (Actually, that's two claims, neither of which is true.) I stated that states used secession when they felt that the federal govt overstepped their bound. I never said states actually seceded. You and 1 other poster obviously can't tell the difference between using something as a tool and actually doing it. The NFLPA is using desertification as a negotiating tactic with the owners. Does that mean they actually already decertified? No. Comprende?


That's actually some pretty good support.

Granted, you have to weigh that against the fact that Lincoln went to war to prevent a different secession.

Perhaps his feelings on the issue were conflicted. :)A politician changing his mind on an issue when it affected him negatively? I am SHOCKED I tell you, SHOCKED!


Still, please consider my complaint about your third claim to be retracted, since your third claim obviously isn't entirely untrue.I don't form my opinions on BS. I actually have studied US history up to the end of the Civil War. I am fascinated by it. I am even more fascinated by the revisionist history that forgets all the atrocities committed by Lincoln and the Union. And the hypocrisy politically of Lincoln. He was not this righteous, do no wrong man that he is painted as. The Civil War is not as cut and dry as people say it is. States may have gone to war to support an archaic, illegal, and immoral practice, but the majority of the people fighting on the Confederate side were not slave owners. 90% of all the slaves in the South were owned by 10% of the people. Slavery was rampant in the North. Southern slaves were actually freed before most Northern slaves. There is plenty of writing on Lincoln that show that he did not feel that blacks were equal to whites. He still thought they were a sub-class to whites. He is on record stating that they would never be able to meet the standard of living of whites. And our "more perfect Union" was threatened internally more than once from its signing to the Civil War.

[Bang]

Why can't the confederate flag just be a symbol of Southern Hospitality or heritage? .

You know why.
Same reason you'd be smart to not wear a swastika armband, even though it's originally a hindu symbol for a lucky charm.

You mention a "few asshats who display it to be negative.."

well, there's an old phrase that you learned when you were a kid. one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, and like it or not, those asshats have spoiled your symbol of southern pride and turned it into a symbol of racism and oppression. There's nothing you can do to change that, nor is there anything that can be done to change the collective mindset of those who view it as such.

Why this is hard to understand I'll never know. People didn't just arbitrarily pick this symbol to assign the racial hatred and violence it has flown over.

As I said before. You may think it stands for pride. But nobody else cares what you think. And it just seems to me that if you know that the majority of people find it offensive (not just a little bit, either.) then why continue to rub it in their faces?

To me it's just a self-serving scream for attention. Being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

~Bang

[Rocky21]

As to previous posts about why doesn’t the guy in the original article use an American flag to show his pride the guy has a big ol’ tattoo of the American Flag that covers the length of his entire arm.

The main point in my posting this article is to point out the political crazy times we live in. The dude has a flag that people find offensive on his personal car and he was fired because he refused to remove it. It has ZERO to do with his job performance. That to me is Crazy Town USA.

I’ve heard it said in The Tailgate a million times that you can never change any one’s mind in an argument. And I don’t aim to do that here. My only hope is that someone considers the possibility that although a great many people see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of white supremacy it doesn’t represent that to every one. (I don’t own a Confederate flag and wouldn’t display one because I know what negative images it conjures up.) It doesn’t represent that to me and from reading what the guy in question has stated, it doesn’t represent that to him.

[Bang]

I’ve heard it said in The Tailgate a million times that you can never change any one’s mind in an argument. And I don’t aim to do that here. My only hope is that someone considers the possibility that although a great many people see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of white supremacy it doesn’t represent that to every one. (I don’t own a Confederate flag and wouldn’t display one because I know what negative images it conjures up.) It doesn’t represent that to me and from reading what the guy in question has stated, it doesn’t represent that to him.

The point you seem to be missing is that no one cares whether or not anyone else sees that symbol a certain way. The overwhelming majority of folks see it the offensive way, and those who are wishing to persuade people otherwise will never make a bit of headway over it.

It's like i keep saying,, wear a swastika. Spend all day explaining to pissed off people that you think it stands for something else.
See how much any of them care.

It's not like anyone is demanding that people stop liking puppies or chocolate ice cream. It's about what that symbol represents to a vast number of people.

Fly it all you want.. but don't expect people in that vast majority to not think you're a dick over it, don't expect that they might not treat you differently because of it, and don't complain when they decide to not be around you as a result of the symbols you choose to represent who you are and what you're proud of. To others, that symbol means something entirely different, and for very GOOD reason. No one just decided to be angry about that flag because they don't like the design, or they don't like Jimbo so they want to make him stop flying it off his truck. There are plenty of real reasons why that flag represents hate.

Living like a pariah. Angering and insulting practically everyone around you. Sure seems worth it to me.

~Bang

[JimboDaMan]

The main point in my posting this article is to point out the political crazy times we live in. The dude has a flag that people find offensive on his personal car and he was fired because he refused to remove it. It has ZERO to do with his job performance. That to me is Crazy Town USA.But that's not what happened. If it was, I'd agree with you that its crazy. From the article:

At issue is the time he parks the pickup at the bus yard, which is on school property.
So they don't want that symbol, which is unarguably controversial, in a place that might represent the school or the company. That's legitimate. They are not firing him for displaying it on his vehicle, they are firing him for displaying it on school grounds (and refusing to stop). That's not crazy, that's their right. The driver decided his need to show the flag at all times was greater than his need for the job.

[twa]

So they don't want that symbol, which is unarguably controversial, in a place that might represent the school or the company. That's legitimate. They are not firing him for displaying it on his vehicle, they are firing him for displaying it on school grounds (and refusing to stop). That's not crazy, that's their right. The driver decided his need to show the flag at all times was greater than his need for the job.

Yep, exercise your 1st rights on your own time
Ordering a item removed that can be offensive to some is justifiable at the workplace...next up burkas

[JimboDaMan]

Yep, exercise your 1st rights on your own time
Ordering a item removed that can be offensive to some is justifiable at the workplace...next up burkasAnd Bibles and crosses.

[twa]

And Bibles and crosses.

already there

http://www.khou.com/news/khou-93810709.html
Texas City student banned from wearing cross necklace

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/5586-fed-reserve-reverses-its-unconstitutional-ban

[Burgold]

already there

http://www.khou.com/news/khou-93810709.html
Texas City student banned from wearing cross necklace

I have a problem with that. Simply wearing a cross is more of a declaration than promoting a religion and it is certainly not supressing my ability to worship, think, or act as I would hope to. I think that's going to far. It is interesting when the Freedoms intersect and the frictions they cause. Sometimes, I think law is not ruled by reason, but is too reactive.

[JimboDaMan]

already there

http://www.khou.com/news/khou-93810709.html
Texas City student banned from wearing cross necklaceNot really, as you are well aware. It's not about people getting offended.

Personally, I don't like what they did because I am not a fan of banning common items because gangs wear them. But I see the reason for the rule, and if you don't enforce across the board then you can't enforce at all.

[Larry]

I stated that before the 14th Amendment the Constitution left open the possibility for secession. I posted articles from respected sources stating that. What else do you want me to do? Resurrect one of the FF so he can tell you southern states felt they had the right to secede? I think it is fairly obvious they felt that waysince they held a convention and voted to secede.

You stated:


Well considering that secession was authorized by the Constitution, requiring a State Convention to vote to secede, I don't see how it could be considered treason.

That's a lie.

Secession is not authorized by the Constitution, and never has been.

When called on this lie, you've pointed to things that happened before the Constitution existed, and attempted to portray those events as secession. (They were not a secession, nor were they authorized in the Constitution). And invented a fictional legal principal.

You claimed that the Constitution authorized secession, and specified a procedure for doing so. That's a lie.

Frankly, if you do "Resurrect one of the FF so he can tell you southern states felt they had the right to secede", it still won't back up your lie. You didn't claim "One of the FF supported the theoretical concept of a right to secession". You claimed that the Constitution authorized it, and specified a procedure.


I stated that states used secession when they felt that the federal govt overstepped their bound. I never said states actually seceded. You and 1 other poster obviously can't tell the difference between using something as a tool and actually doing it. The NFLPA is using desertification as a negotiating tactic with the owners. Does that mean they actually already decertified? No. Comprende?

And blowhard politicians have been claiming that to be president, a candidate must publish his original, obtained from the hospital, long form birth certificate.

This obviously proves that the Constitution specifies that a long form birth certificate is required, and specifies how it must be published. It also proves that states have used this Constitutional authority all the time, and that EVERYONE agrees that the Constitution mandates this. Right?


I don't form my opinions on BS.

"Don't form your opinions on BS"? You claim BS as fact.


I actually have studied US history up to the end of the Civil War. I am fascinated by it. I am even more fascinated by the revisionist history that forgets all the atrocities committed by Lincoln and the Union. And the hypocrisy politically of Lincoln. He was not this righteous, do no wrong man that he is painted as. The Civil War is not as cut and dry as people say it is. States may have gone to war to support an archaic, illegal, and immoral practice, but the majority of the people fighting on the Confederate side were not slave owners. 90% of all the slaves in the South were owned by 10% of the people. Slavery was rampant in the North. Southern slaves were actually freed before most Northern slaves. There is plenty of writing on Lincoln that show that he did not feel that blacks were equal to whites. He still thought they were a sub-class to whites. He is on record stating that they would never be able to meet the standard of living of whites. And our "more perfect Union" was threatened internally more than once from its signing to the Civil War.

Yes, I fully understand. You have spent a great deal of time in memorizing selected facts in support of your agenda of apologizing for the Confederacy.

Lincoln committed atrocities. Jefferson Davis didn't recognize the authority of the Constitution, so he gets a pass.

The South attempted to destroy the United States because they feared that some day the US would tell them that all blacks weren't their property, and many people in the North didn't want blacks to marry their daughters, therefore both sides were morally equal.

I daresay that every person on ES is well familiar with the revisionist history being used to justify the claims of the Confederacy apologists.

Heck, many of us are products of the Virginia public school system, and therefore we were taught it. :)

---------- Post added March-11th-2011 at 10:25 AM ----------


But that's not what happened. If it was, I'd agree with you that its crazy. From the article:

So they don't want that symbol, which is unarguably controversial, in a place that might represent the school or the company. That's legitimate. They are not firing him for displaying it on his vehicle, they are firing him for displaying it on school grounds (and refusing to stop). That's not crazy, that's their right. The driver decided his need to show the flag at all times was greater than his need for the job.

Thanks for pointing out that he was parking in a school parking lot. (Although I still wonder: He's parking at a school? Or at the "school bus yard", which is owned by the school district? To me, the distinction is whether it's parked in front of children, not whether it's on property that's owned by the school district.

Me, while I do think that an employer has the authority to, say, mandate that employees not express their political views in the workplace, (in the interests of avoiding discord among the workforce), I also think that mandating that said muzzle applies to the vehicle you drive to work is going too far. (At least in most cases.)

I'm still leaning towards the feeling that the guy was done wrong. (Although I'll also admit that the mental image I'm getting is that he's parking some place that isn't actually at a school. If he's parking actually at a school, then that moves my opinion less in his favor.)

[twa]

Bur it is not the cross,but rather the effect of symbols....it supposedly is gang related

Much the same as the flag's effects on others are what are considered.
I would prefer we limited being PC,but ....

[Tweedr01]

“History is written by the victors.”
-Winston Churchill

[CrabR]

no comparison between the confederate battle flag and a swastika armband

a reach

[Burgold]

Bur it is not the cross,but rather the effect of symbols....it supposedly is gang related

Much the same as the flag's effects on others are what are considered.
I would prefer we limited being PC,but ....

Even as a teacher, I was leery of this though. I thought freedom of expression was important and didn't like the imposition of dress codes. Mind you, I was in the minority amongst the teachers at the school in which I tought.

[Rocky21]

The point you seem to be missing is that no one cares whether or not anyone else sees that symbol a certain way. The overwhelming majority of folks see it the offensive way, and those who are wishing to persuade people otherwise will never make a bit of headway over it.

It's like i keep saying,, wear a swastika. Spend all day explaining to pissed off people that you think it stands for something else.
See how much any of them care.

It's not like anyone is demanding that people stop liking puppies or chocolate ice cream. It's about what that symbol represents to a vast number of people.

Fly it all you want.. but don't expect people in that vast majority to not think you're a dick over it, don't expect that they might not treat you differently because of it, and don't complain when they decide to not be around you as a result of the symbols you choose to represent who you are and what you're proud of. To others, that symbol means something entirely different, and for very GOOD reason. No one just decided to be angry about that flag because they don't like the design, or they don't like Jimbo so they want to make him stop flying it off his truck. There are plenty of real reasons why that flag represents hate.

Living like a pariah. Angering and insulting practically everyone around you. Sure seems worth it to me.

~BangI understand your point completely and agree with it. If you fly a Confederate flag expect plenty of folks to be offended by it. I think a lot of people that fly one know and expect this. It's part of the Rebel attitude.

When you say things like Fly it all you want I'm afraid you've missed my point but I realize mine is an odd, nonconventional, minority point of view and it's easier to paint with a broad brush.

[Burgold]

no comparison between the confederate battle flag and a swastika armband

a reach

Depends who you're talking to. To someone whose family were slaves, had their church bombed, and family members lynched... they might see a lot of similarities.

I don't make that kind of equivalence personally, but I can understand how that symbol has become tied into that history even if it isn't as clean cut as nazism and the swaztika.

[Popeman38]

You stated:
That's a lie.

Secession is not authorized by the Constitution, and never has been.

When called on this lie, you've pointed to things that happened before the Constitution existed, and attempted to portray those events as secession. (They were not a secession, nor were they authorized in the Constitution). And invented a fictional legal principal.

You claimed that the Constitution authorized secession, and specified a procedure for doing so. That's a lie. Larry, I posted articles that state quite clearly that prior to the 14th Amendment, secession was debatable. I didn't make anything up. It wasn't before the Constitution was written. The colonies seceded from the Articles of the Confederation and adopted the Constitution by a vote. That is fact. Some of the colonies/states obviously held that you could do the same with the new govt. And they did.

Just because you think I am wrong, does not mean it is a lie. I invented nothing. This is why I say you twist more than any member in the tailgate. You latch on to an idea or a word and repeatedly repost it saying "you said this, its a lie". Do some god damned research on the subject. It isn't as black and white as you say. There are respected authors that clearly disagree with your line of reasoning. Does that mean they are lieing as well?
Frankly, if you do "Resurrect one of the FF so he can tell you southern states felt they had the right to secede", it still won't back up your lie. You didn't claim "One of the FF supported the theoretical concept of a right to secession". You claimed that the Constitution authorized it, and specified a procedure. I stated that. Based on research. Someone linked to a SCOTUS ruling that was issued a decade later. Obviously, there was no court case in 1861. If the SCOTUS had ruled in 1865, the CSA would not have recognized the courts authority and continued what they were doing. It isn't like the CSA happened over night. They printed their own money for gods sake. The Union claimed that what the Confederacy did was illegal. There was nothing definitive saying it was illegal at the time. I have linked to 2 different sources that show that. Obviously, secession is not on the table today. But then, it was. And it was used. And the only thing that said it was illegal was opinions. Nothing was decided until 1869.


And blowhard politicians have been claiming that to be president, a candidate must publish his original, obtained from the hospital, long form birth certificate.

This obviously proves that the Constitution specifies that a long form birth certificate is required, and specifies how it must be published. It also proves that states have used this Constitutional authority all the time, and that EVERYONE agrees that the Constitution mandates this. Right? If the federal govt bowed to that threat, that means they obviously took it seriously.
"Don't form your opinions on BS"? You claim BS as fact. And all you do is question me based on another poster, never bringing anything to the table. And you claim I bring BS? Do some research, bring some "facts" of your own, and quit hurling "this guy stated that, your a liar". Until then, all you do is rotate on one statement and twist away.
Yes, I fully understand. You have spent a great deal of time in memorizing selected facts in support of your agenda of apologizing for the Confederacy.

Lincoln committed atrocities. Jefferson Davis didn't recognize the authority of the Constitution, so he gets a pass.

The South attempted to destroy the United States because they feared that some day the US would tell them that all blacks weren't their property, and many people in the North didn't want blacks to marry their daughters, therefore both sides were morally equal.

I daresay that every person on ES is well familiar with the revisionist history being used to justify the claims of the Confederacy apologists.

Heck, many of us are products of the Virginia public school system, and therefore we were taught it. :)Actually, I went to a private school. In Manassas. That taught me that Lincoln was the best man to ever live in the US. That the Union was sacred and did nothing wrong. That the CSA was a group of racist, god hating, progress fearing, treasonous bunch of uneducated hillbillies that ever lived. That all the Confederate generals were idiots and any battle the South won was by accident or freak circumstances. Grant was the best General in US history. Lee and Jackson were maroons. I took all of that in as a kid. Then I actually started researching and became fascinated by the Civil War. I took classes on it in college because I loved it. It's funny, critical thinking is encouraged in these parts until it starts affecting generally accepted truths about important events. It is much easier to look back and summarize as the south is evil, the north is good, good triumphed over evil. In reality, the water is much murkier than that. There is not one subject that delineated the differences between North and South like so many claim. Not even slavery.

See what happens when you assume Larry?;)

[twa]

If dress codes are good enough for the military then they are good enough for schools....both being areas of separation from normal life and different rights applicable.....so are workplaces

[Burgold]

If dress codes are good enough for the military then they are good enough for schools....both being areas of separation from normal life and different rights applicable.....so are workplaces

I disagree. Schools are a place for exploration, curiousity, growth, experimenting with ideas and roles. One outlet for that exploration or expression can be through apparel. The military is a place you volunteer to join to get a job done. Cohesiveness and unity are much more important although the military also needs people who can think, challenge, and express themselves when appropriate.

But I'm okay with being in the minority on this issue. I even acknowledge that schools with dress codes eliminate some problems and seem to achieve slightly better. So, while I believe what I believe on philosophical terms as a pragmatist I am willing to make a compromise to my ideals on this issue. I still think kids shouldn't have their freedom of expression stifled though.

[Larry]

Larry, I posted articles that state quite clearly that prior to the 14th Amendment, secession was debatable.

In support of your claim that the Constitution authorized it, and specified the procedure for doing so.

If you'd said it was debatable, I'd have agreed with you. (In fact, I think in this very thread, I've pointed out that IMO, the South had some legitimate Constitutional complaints.)

[Bang]

no comparison between the confederate battle flag and a swastika armband

a reach

You've missed my point. You appear to have taken my comparison as to being one of Nazi Germany and the South. That's not it. It's a comparison of the symbols and what they've come to mean.

The swastika is an ancient hindu symbol for a good luck charm.
But it has come to mean something else entirely. That is not debatable.

The Confederate flag stands for "southern pride", according to a lot of folks here.
But for the majority of Americans that symbol has a completely different meaning, and not one that is unjustified.

It's the same thing.

~Bang

[Stadium-Armory]

From yesterday's NY Times:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/the-rebel-constitution/?smid=fb-disunion


The Rebel Constitution

Long after they had lost the Civil War, Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders tried to cast secession as a wholly constitutional move designed to restore government to what the Founding Fathers had intended. To do so, they pointed to the document on which they erected the Confederate States of America — the Confederate Constitution, which they cast as a simple copy of the original.

And, in many respects the Constitution of the Confederate States of America does appear to be a copy of the original document signed in Philadelphia. Indeed, sitting down to write the foundational document for their newly formed nation in February 1861 (the provisional constitution) and then in March (the permanent constitution, which was adopted on March 11), delegates to the Confederate convention turned again and again to the United States Constitution as both a model and a template.

There were, however, a few significant changes. In fact, with just a handful of alterations the delegates fundamentally transformed the character of the document and signaled the strikingly different purposes of their new national government they would erect on its foundation. In crafting their own Constitution, Confederate politicians made the most of their long-awaited opportunity to perfect, in their eyes, the original document. They purged the text of all of the ambivalences, compromises and hedges about slavery, representation and the power of the federal government that had plagued the republic since the founding.

Whatever revisionist stories Davis tried to spin after the war, the delegates in Montgomery set out to make something that had, in fact, never existed before: an explicitly proslavery constitution for an explicitly proslavery — and anti-democratic — country.

[zoony]

I disagree. Schools are a place for exploration, curiousity, growth, experimenting with ideas and roles.


God forbid any of the students express their creativity thru their schoolwork. Much better to wear jeans with ass hanging out.

And everyone being able to tell who the poor kids are is also a nice touch.

uniforms shmuniforms

...

[Popeman38]

In support of your claim that the Constitution authorized it, and specified the procedure for doing so.

If you'd said it was debatable, I'd have agreed with you. (In fact, I think in this very thread, I've pointed out that IMO, the South had some legitimate Constitutional complaints.)The articles I posted said that the working assumption then was that if you seceded from one form of govt to form another, you could do the same to the new form of govt. And that this option was not addressed until the SCOTUS ruled in 1869 and the 14th Amendment was passed.

The Constitution does not contain a secession clause Larry. Never claimed it did. However, following the process for ratifying the Constitution in the state, one can clearly deduce how a state can de-ratify it. In other words, the steps laid out at Convention for seceding from the AoC, could be followed to secede from the Constitution. This really isn't rocket science. Only political opinions existed on whether this was valid. Southern states clearly held that it was viable.

[Corcaigh]

I disagree. Schools are a place for exploration, curiousity, growth, experimenting with ideas and roles. One outlet for that exploration or expression can be through apparel.

So let them do a fashion design elective.

[Burgold]

God forbid any of the students express their creativity thru their schoolwork. Much better to wear jeans with ass hanging out.

And everyone being able to tell who the poor kids are is also a nice touch.

uniforms shmuniforms

...

There are lots of good arguments for school uniforms. Probably more good ones for them then against them, but I have never bought the poor kid argmument. First, school uniforms are not all the same usually, it's you have to wear this kind of top and this kind of bottom. So, kids will still be able to distinguish between rich and poor. Second, kids are devilishly clever at finding ways to pick on and antagonize each other. There's no way to stop that and putting everyone in a similar costume certainly won't eliminate bullying, teasing, or school clownery.

---------- Post added March-11th-2011 at 11:21 AM ----------

Toldja, I was in the minority on this one. :)

[twa]

So let them do a fashion design elective.

Exactly,we fail at teaching the core needed to truly expand curiosity,experimentation and exploration.
Focus on giving them the tools needed to enable the advances

[JimboDaMan]

God forbid any of the students express their creativity thru their schoolwork. Much better to wear jeans with ass hanging out.

And everyone being able to tell who the poor kids are is also a nice touch.

uniforms shmuniforms

...Not following this at all. Maybe in third grade you can tell by the clothing who is poor and who is not. By middle or high school (quaintly, the "ass hanging out" years), many of the well-off kids dress like homeless and the poorer ones can dress with care. If you need to know how much their mom and dad make, take note of who drives what into the student parking lot. Should we issue them all standard-model Fords?

[Popeman38]

From yesterday's NY Times:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/the-rebel-constitution/?smid=fb-disunionYes, the CSA was pro-slavery. No, it was not anti-democratic. It functioned under the exact structure as the USA. The only way the CSA was anti-democratic is if the USA is anti-democratic.

[Stadium-Armory]

Yes, of course, codifying people as possessions is very democratic.

[Popeman38]

Yes, of course, owning people is very democratic.News flash: the North owned slaves. And it was legal even after Lincoln emancipated southern slaves. MD was a slave holding Union state.

Even after slavery was abolished, blacks did not have the right to vote. Your premise seems to be that the US still isn't democratic, since every person does not have the exact same rights. Is that correct?

[Tweedr01]

If the federal govt bowed to that threat, that means they obviously took it seriously. And all you do is question me based on another poster, never bringing anything to the table. And you claim I bring BS? Do some research, bring some "facts" of your own, and quit hurling "this guy stated that, your a liar". Until then, all you do is rotate on one statement and twist away.Actually, I went to a private school. In Manassas. That taught me that Lincoln was the best man to ever live in the US. That the Union was sacred and did nothing wrong. That the CSA was a group of racist, god hating, progress fearing, treasonous bunch of uneducated hillbillies that ever lived. That all the Confederate generals were idiots and any battle the South won was by accident or freak circumstances. Grant was the best General in US history. Lee and Jackson were maroons. I took all of that in as a kid. Then I actually started researching and became fascinated by the Civil War. I took classes on it in college because I loved it. It's funny, critical thinking is encouraged in these parts until it starts affecting generally accepted truths about important events. It is much easier to look back and summarize as the south is evil, the north is good, good triumphed over evil. In reality, the water is much murkier than that. There is not one subject that delineated the differences between North and South like so many claim. Not even slavery.

See what happens when you assume Larry?;)
Not to derail your post, but I can only think of one private school in manasses, ECS, is that the one you went to? Just curious, really small world.

[DjTj]

The articles I posted said that the working assumption then was that if you seceded from one form of govt to form another, you could do the same to the new form of govt. And that this option was not addressed until the SCOTUS ruled in 1869 and the 14th Amendment was passed.It was not the "working assumption." It was highly controversial, and the majority of the country (including every President, and the majority of Congress) disagreed with it. Certainly the Founding Fathers, even the Southern ones, disagreed with secession. As Madison wrote in a letter to Daniel Webster in 1833:

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. Its double aspect, nevertheless, with the countenance recd from certain quarters, is giving it a popular currency here which may influence the approaching elections both for Congress & for the State Legislature. It has gained some advantage also, by mixing itself with the question whether the Constitution of the U.S. was formed by the people or by the States, now under a theoretic discussion by animated partizans.

It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as imbodied into the several states, who were parties to it and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity. They might, by the same authority & by the same process have converted the Confederacy into a mere league or treaty; or continued it with enlarged or abridged powers; or have imbodied the people of their respective States into one people, nation or sovereignty; or as they did by a mixed form make them one people, nation, or sovereignty, for certain purposes, and not so for others.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html


The Constitution does not contain a secession clause Larry. Never claimed it did. However, following the process for ratifying the Constitution in the state, one can clearly deduce how a state can de-ratify it. In other words, the steps laid out at Convention for seceding from the AoC, could be followed to secede from the Constitution. This really isn't rocket science. Only political opinions existed on whether this was valid. Southern states clearly held that it was viable.Your logic is flawed. If you were correct, then it would be okay for a state to secede from the union today. I won't disagree that certain politicians made arguments like the one your making, but it was not a majority view, even in the Southern states. Consider these reactions by Southern states during the nullification crisis:

The other Southern states did not share the view of the Palmetto State. Letters from Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia all either overtly or covertly condemned the actions of the South Carolina convention. Alabama legislators wrote that the idea was "unsound in theory and dangerous in practice," and that it would lead to "anarchy and civil discord." Louisiana officials believed the Tariff of 1828 was "constitutionally expedient, and harmless to Southern States." Mississippi leaders wrote nullification was "a heresy fatal to the existence of the Union." Our sister state North Carolina indicted the nullification decree was "revolutionary in its character, subversive of the Constitution of the United States and [a doctrine that] leads to the dissolution of the Union." The strongest rebuke came from Georgia leaders which said, "We abhor the doctrine of nullification as neither a peaceful nor a constitutional remedy but, on the contrary, as tending to civil commotion and disunion." In a difficult period, South Carolina stood alone by proclaiming, "It is within the providence of God that Great truths should be independent of the human agents that promulgate them"

http://www.taftmatney.com/taftmatney/calhoun.html

Politicians today are still making nullification arguments, as recently shown in Arizona, but that doesn't make them correct: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9LNU9N81.htm

[Stadium-Armory]

News flash: the North owned slaves. And it was legal even after Lincoln emancipated southern slaves. MD was a slave holding Union state.

Even after slavery was abolished, blacks did not have the right to vote. Your premise seems to be that the US still isn't democratic, since every person does not have the exact same rights. Is that correct?

It was a weak sauce argument, I'll give you that.

[Bang]

I understand your point completely and agree with it. If you fly a Confederate flag expect plenty of folks to be offended by it. I think a lot of people that fly one know and expect this. It's part of the Rebel attitude.

When you say things like Fly it all you want I'm afraid you've missed my point but I realize mine is an odd, nonconventional, minority point of view and it's easier to paint with a broad brush.

Well, saying "fly it all you want' .. I don't necessarily mean you. We all argue from positions of intellect, and many of us would never do what we are defending others for doing, be it in this topic or any of the others. I'm just speaking in general to those who hold that 'rebel' attitude you speak of. There's no more rebellion,, now it seems the only reason to have that attitude is to stand yourself apart, for what reason other than being apart I don't know. Some people might have some notion that they have to show pride in themselves by flying a symbol that they know is hurting someone else's feelings, or they might just like to be a dick who pisses off their neighbors.
There's plenty of other symbols of the south they could use, but they choose that one even in knowing what people associate it with.

People can fly it, but for them to expect other people to change their attitudes towards it because they personally feel it means something else is ridiculous.

~Bang

[Popeman38]

Not to derail your post, but I can only think of one private school in manasses, ECS, is that the one you went to? Just curious, really small world.There is also Seton! Yeah, went to ECS. Class of 96.

[Larry]

The articles I posted said that the working assumption then was that if you seceded from one form of govt to form another, you could do the same to the new form of govt. And that this option was not addressed until the SCOTUS ruled in 1869 and the 14th Amendment was passed.

And your attempt to paint the adoption of a revised national Constitution as secession is untrue, as well.

When, say, Virginia, ratified the (new) Constitution, they did not leave the United States. At no time in US history was the United States two countries. There never was a Confederated United States and a Constituted United States. There was a United States, operating under the Articles, and then there was a United States operating under the Constitution.

No State has ever seceded from the United States. The only states to ever claim to do so were the Confederacy.

And you can try to revise history, and pull "well, if you look at the Constitution, and apply this principal that I just pulled out of my Philly, then one can deduce" all you want.

[twa]

It was threatened as a option by northern states many times...though certainly never done

New England Federalists and Hartford Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#New_England_Federal ists_and_Hartford_Convention

Abolitionists
In the May 1844 edition of The Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison wrote "Address to the Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the United States." In this strongly disunionist editorial, Garrison wrote that the Constitution had been created “at the expense of the colored population of the country”. With southerners continuing to dominate the nation because of the Three-fifths compromise, it was time “to set the captive free by the potency of truth” and “secede from the government.”[33] on the same day that this issue was published, the New England Anti-Slavery Convention endorsed the principles of disunion from slaveholders by a vote of 250–24.[34]

From this point on, with the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso into the public debate, talk of secession would be primarily a southern issue. The southern theme, increased perceptions of helplessness against a powerful political group attacking a basic southern interest, was almost a mirror image of Federalist beliefs at the beginning of the century.

[Larry]

It was threatened as a option by northern states many times...though certainly never done.

And many politicians have claimed that Obama needs to publish his birth certificate.

This proves that the Constitution says that a long form birth certificate, publicly disclosed, is a requirement to be President, exactly how?

[twa]

Bury your head in the sand if ya want

[PeterMP]

It was threatened as a option by northern states many times...though certainly never done
One editorial does not constitute a threat from a state. Here's more from the wiki link:

"Generally the convention was a "victory for moderation", but the timing led to the convention being identified as "a synonym for disloyalty and treason" and was a major factor in the sharp decline of the Federalist Party."

For a FEW people at the convention JUST talking about secession, the WHOLE convention became synonoumous to disloyalty and treason.

In addition, it isn't clear whether the people at the convention that talked about secession thought they had the Constitutional right to do so or had an extra-Constitutional right to do so.

Nobody ever claimed under the laws of England that the States had the right to secede, but the founding fathers clearly argued they had a larger right to scecede.

[DjTj]

Nobody ever claimed under the laws of England that the States had the right to secede, but the founding fathers clearly argued they had a larger right to scecede.Yes, there is a clear distinction between the natural right to revolution and the legal right to secession. And while politicians may have argued for the legal right, it is clear by their actions that when the states did "secede," in the American Revolution and during the Civil War, that they fully expected an armed conflict more consistent with an illegal revolution than with a legal secession.

[Tweedr01]

There is also Seton! Yeah, went to ECS. Class of 96.
oh right, i completely forgot about seton, it's been awhile. one thing i noticed when i started going to public schools afterwards was how much more advanced the curriculum was at ECS. i immediately was setup in the IB program at Stonewall Jackson HS when i went from private to public schools...ok sorry to derail, lol

[Popeman38]

oh right, i completely forgot about seton, it's been awhile. one thing i noticed when i started going to public schools afterwards was how much more advanced the curriculum was at ECS. i immediately was setup in the IB program at Stonewall Jackson HS when i went from private to public schools...ok sorry to derail, lolShhhh, people don't like it when you say the public education you receive is inferior to private education. Might indicate you want to, gasp, privatize the education system.:silly:

[Henry]

Shhhh, people don't like it when you say the public education you receive is inferior to private education. Might indicate you want to, gasp, privatize the education system.

Didn't you JUST get through telling us how awful your private school's history class was?

Get your story straight guy.:)

For the record, VA public schools don't cannonize Lincoln, or demonize the south. Sounds like you are arguing against your high school history class more than anyone in this thread.

[Tweedr01]

Shhhh, people don't like it when you say the public education you receive is inferior to private education. Might indicate you want to, gasp, privatize the education system.
hahaha, i thoroughly enjoyed not having to study for anything when i transferred over. watching everyone stress out over tests was hilarious, the entire time i was thinking, "man I did this in 5th grade!"

---------- Post added March-11th-2011 at 02:28 PM ----------


Didn't you JUST get through telling us how awful your private school's history class was?

Get your story straight guy.:)
har har har, lol, ECS was straight up one of the best schools when it came to teaching math. i had already finished up geometry in 7th or 8th grade. i was the only kid in algebra 2 as a freshmen, i wasn't allowed in the combined algebra 2/trig class.

one of the things i will remember is that the teachers were strict, but they also put forth so much effort to make sure we actually understood what we were being taught as opposed to just being given a study guide for whatever test we were taking.

i'm sorry i keep on derailing the thread, haha

[Predicto]

Shhhh, people don't like it when you say the public education you receive is inferior to private education. Might indicate you want to, gasp, privatize the education system.

Umm, I don't think that anyone has ever criticized anyone on the Tailgate for noting the obvious truth that some private schools provide educational advantages over public schools.

Of course, the second sentence of your post does not at all follow from the first sentence of your post, so I suspect that even a private education can fail to adequately encompass basic logic in its curriculum.

[PeterMP]

Yes, there is a clear distinction between the natural right to revolution and the legal right to secession. And while politicians may have argued for the legal right, it is clear by their actions that when the states did "secede," in the American Revolution and during the Civil War, that they fully expected an armed conflict more consistent with an illegal revolution than with a legal secession.
And it wouldn't be at all surprising if a group of people that thought the Constitution was morally bankrupt because of how it dealt with slavery, thought they had the moral, but not legal right to secede.

[Larry]

i'm sorry i keep on derailing the thread, haha

I think this thread derailed along about page 2.

In keeping with the long-held (but not Constitutionally recognized) Tailgate tradition. :)

[Popeman38]

Umm, I don't think that anyone has ever criticized anyone on the Tailgate for noting the obvious truth that some private schools provide educational advantages over public schools.

Of course, the second sentence of your post does not at all follow from the first sentence of your post, so I suspect that even a private education can fail to adequately encompass basic logic in its curriculum.If you couldn't tell my post was tongue in cheek, we really need to get a sarcasm font.

---------- Post added March-11th-2011 at 02:39 PM ----------


Didn't you JUST get through telling us how awful your private school's history class was?

Get your story straight guy.:)

For the record, VA public schools don't cannonize Lincoln, or demonize the south. Sounds like you are arguing against your high school history class more than anyone in this thread.Southern Baptist history, gotta love it!:D

But like Tweed, ECS gave me an education in govt, math and science that was better than the most. Also taught critical thinking and how to study.

[twa]

And it wouldn't be at all surprising if a group of people that thought the Constitution was morally bankrupt because of how it dealt with slavery had the moral, but not legal right to secede.

I agree I overstated by using states rather than members of them,however the consideration of it clearly was not too uncommon.

The legal right being forbidden only became clarified as greater power was controlled by the federal govt and federalist waned in influence.(especially as a result of the Civil war)
Legal rights tend to morph over time.

[Predicto]

If you couldn't tell my post was tongue in cheek, we really need to get a sarcasm font.[COLOR=Gold]



Umm, you think my response was serious? Oh dear.

[PeterMP]

I agree I overstated by using states rather than members of them,however the consideration of it clearly was not too uncommon.

The legal right being forbidden only became clarified as greater power was controlled by the federal govt and federalist waned in influence.(especially as a result of the Civil war)
Legal rights tend to morph over time.
Except as DjTj (and myself even earlier in this thread and in the wiki page you've already quoted) clearly indicate that at least James Madison didn't consider there to be a Constitutional right for a state to secede well before the war.

In addition, talking about secesion, if there was a legal right to secede, would not have been tratorous, but the wiki page you quoted tells us people did consider the Hartford Convention to be traitorous even though no actual secesion occurred.

There are still secesionist today.

[Popeman38]

Except as DjTj (and myself even earlier in this thread and in the wiki page you've already quoted) clearly indicate that at least James Madison didn't consider there to be a Constitutional right for a state to secede well before the war.

In addition, talking about secesion, if there was a legal right to secede, would not have been tratorous, but the wiki page you quoted tells us people did consider the Hartford Convention to be traitorous even though no actual secesion occurred.

There are still secesionist today.We need to think 1860, not 2011. Because James Madison opined that there was no right to secede did not make it law. It was debated. Quite a few actually believed it was legal. Politicians back then used secession as a tool. States used secession as a tool to negotiate with the Fed Govt. obviously people thought secession was a real possibility, otherwise they would have dismissed them as we do today. I am not saying it was correct, or that they were right. Obviously, today we know it is not legal for a state to secede. But we have history, the 14th Amendment, and a SCOTUS ruling to base that decision on. In 1860, there was only the precedent of the revolution and states seceding from the AoC and into the Constitution. There was no established case law. There were only opinions. As such, nothing about an opinion makes it law.

[DjTj]

We need to think 1860, not 2011. Because James Madison opined that there was no right to secede did not make it law. It was debated. Quite a few actually believed it was legal. Politicians back then used secession as a tool. States used secession as a tool to negotiate with the Fed Govt. obviously people thought secession was a real possibility, otherwise they would have dismissed them as we do today. I am not saying it was correct, or that they were right. Obviously, today we know it is not legal for a state to secede. But we have history, the 14th Amendment, and a SCOTUS ruling to base that decision on. In 1860, there was only the precedent of the revolution and states seceding from the AoC and into the Constitution. There was no established case law. There were only opinions. As such, nothing about an opinion makes it law.If they believed it was legal, why didn't they just leave Fort Sumter alone?

[Rocky21]

People can fly it, but for them to expect other people to change their attitudes towards it because they personally feel it means something else is ridiculous.I still agree with you. My only hope is that someone considers the possibility that although a great many people see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of white supremacy it doesn’t represent that to every one.

[twa]

If they believed it was legal, why didn't they just leave Fort Sumter alone?

They did for months until resupply and reinforcement was attempted.

[DjTj]

They did for months until resupply and reinforcement was attempted.Resupply, not reinforcement.

In early April, President Lincoln decided to try to resupply the fort, sending several merchant vessels under escort of the US Navy to Charleston. On April 6, 1861, he told Francis Pickens, Governor of South Carolina, "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort." The Confederate leaders met in Montgomery to discuss the issue, deciding on April 9th to attack Fort Sumter and force it to surrender prior to the arrival of the US Fleet.

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/article.php?id=214

[PeterMP]

We need to think 1860, not 2011. Because James Madison opined that there was no right to secede did not make it law. It was debated. Quite a few actually believed it was legal. Politicians back then used secession as a tool. States used secession as a tool to negotiate with the Fed Govt. obviously people thought secession was a real possibility, otherwise they would have dismissed them as we do today. I am not saying it was correct, or that they were right. Obviously, today we know it is not legal for a state to secede. But we have history, the 14th Amendment, and a SCOTUS ruling to base that decision on. In 1860, there was only the precedent of the revolution and states seceding from the AoC and into the Constitution. There was no established case law. There were only opinions. As such, nothing about an opinion makes it law.
Who believed it was legal?

Just because secession was possible that didn't make it Constitutional.

The states didn't secede from the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were replaced via a Constitutional Congress.

[Popeman38]

Resupply, not reinforcement.

In early April, President Lincoln decided to try to resupply the fort, sending several merchant vessels under escort of the US Navy to Charleston. On April 6, 1861, he told Francis Pickens, Governor of South Carolina, "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort." The Confederate leaders met in Montgomery to discuss the issue, deciding on April 9th to attack Fort Sumter and force it to surrender prior to the arrival of the US Fleet.

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/article.php?id=214Correct. After they had already insisted that US forces leave CSA land. That is why the commander moved to Fort Sumter and hunkered down.

[DjTj]

Correct. After they had already insisted that US forces leave CSA land. That is why the commander moved to Fort Sumter and hunkered down.Fort Sumter was United States federal property. It's not like they were marching US troops through downtown Charleston.

We didn't close all of our military bases when we gave the Philippines their independence, and they didn't start firing on us. If secession was just a legal formality, couldn't the Confederacy have just let the Union troops stay in Fort Sumter peacefully?

[Predicto]

I still agree with you. My only hope is that someone considers the possibility that although a great many people see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of white supremacy it doesn’t represent that to every one.

We all completely understand that. I used to have that flag hanging in the back window of my car.

But once I learned what that flag meant to OTHER people, I decided that was a message that I didn't want to send, and I realized that continuing to display it fully knowing what it means to other people would be kind of a dick move.

[twa]

Resupply, not reinforcement.
]

Typical Yankee argument...you ignore they already reinforced it to start with.:pfft:

On December 26, 1860, six days after South Carolina declared its secession, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie and secretly relocated companies E and H (127 men, 13 of them musicians) of the 1st U.S. Artillery to Fort Sumter without orders from Washington, on his own initiative.

[JimboDaMan]

I still agree with you. My only hope is that someone considers the possibility that although a great many people see the Confederate Flag as a symbol of white supremacy it doesn’t represent that to every one.I don't know that I'd go as far as "white supremacy". But when I see someone displaying a rebel flag I kinda get the feeling the "n" word is used quite openly in that crowd. I know that not everybody is like that. But I've seen it happen often enough that it becomes my expectation.

[twa]

Ya think they hang with rappers?
Wouldn't put it past them

[Bang]

We all completely understand that. I used to have that flag hanging in the back window of my car.

But once I learned what that flag meant to OTHER people, I decided that was a message that I didn't want to send, and I realized that continuing to display it fully knowing what it means to other people would be kind of a dick move.

Why.. you considerate BASTARD!

~Bang

[Teller]

I've wanted one for a while. And my reasons for NOT getting one are the same as Predicto's for getting rid of his.

I have to admit though, it's kinda funny. If you asked a thousand people which of us used to have that flag on our car, TWO thousand would say me. :ols:

[zoony]

Why.. you considerate BASTARD!

~Bang


I know, right?

There is one thing I refuse to change, however. I feel that extending a middle finger to someone is a gesture of kindness. **** the rest of 'em if they can't see that. It only matters what I think.

.......

[Predicto]

I've wanted one for a while. And my reasons for NOT getting one are the same as Predicto's for getting rid of his.

I have to admit though, it's kinda funny. If you asked a thousand people which of us used to have that flag on our car, TWO thousand would say me. :ols:

Why would you bother to have a Dixie flag in the back of your car?

I've seen your car. :silly:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/9611/527646.jpg (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/527646.jpg/)

[Burgold]

Why would you bother to have a Dixie flag in the back of your car?

I've seen your car. :silly:

Okay, HH has gone up a couple of cool points in my book. Also, Hog, good ole buddy ole pal could you set me up with your cousin Daisy? (Not the current day one mindya, but the one immortalized on TV)

[skinfan13]

Nah, flying the confederate flag is celebrating treason. Even if you get away from the racial stuff it is celebrating the secession. The people who quit the Union, spilled their brother's blood and fought against the United States. Was there a Confederate flag prior to the Civil War? I'm for freedom of speech, but it's one of the most anti-U.S. symbols in the U.S. It celebrates our division and almost the destruction of the country by people who wanted to tear the U.S. apart. It's not Southern pride. It's rebel pride.I know I said I was checking out in the other thread, but I just had to say something to this.

first of all, what the **** happened to you as a poster? I seem to recall you being a much more agreeable and pleasant person back in the heyday of this board.

Second, what would you call the hundreds, if not thousands of Virginia Military Institute graduates who have fought, bled, and sometimes died on the battlefield having spent four years at VMI saluting a statue of General Jackson, Saluting the grave of Robert Edward Lee, and who until very recently marched under the Confederate flag on every May 15, the day that the VMI Corps fought as a single unit to protect the town of New Market from being ravaged and burned by the Union in 1864? The same New Market I proudly wear on my class ring and will wear as an officer in the United States Army?

Would you call all of us traitors? Would call me a traitor? Would you say I celebrate treason?

don't answer that question either, I don't want to know.

****in peace, I'm out.

[Burgold]

No, I don't consider you a traitor, in fact from what I know about you your passion and patriotism is very strong and real, but you do celebrate secession when you honor that flag. It was the Confederate Battle Flag not the flag of the South. There's no flag of the North, no flag of the East, the West, or the South. There is the flag of the United States, State Flags, plus a few county and municipal flags. The Confederate flag harkens to one of the darkest, bloodiest periods in our nation's history.The troops that defended New Market did so bravely and honorably, but if they hadn't betrayed their nation, if they hadn't broken the Union would they have ever needed to? No one including you has been able to really refute what I said. Some have tried by saying that secession was legal and part of an unwritten, but understood Constitution process, but that's been a hard point to prove and one that history seems to disagree with. What I wrote is exceedingly blunt, but it's also true. You asked me not to answer you and I've expanded on that quote several times within this thread so I won't go into any more expansive explanations than this.

[Big Blue Joe]

no comparison between the confederate battle flag and a swastika armband

a reachI agree. The swastika is a religious symbol of good fortune that was used extensively in India for several millennia prior to WWII. On the other hand, the confederate flag was born out of desire to continue a brutal system of racial oppression. There really is no comparison between the two. If it wasn't for its well-known ties to American history in the western part of the world, the confederate flag would have been a much more fitting symbol for the Nazis to adopt.