whysoserious
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2011
- Messages
- 8,170
- Reaction score
- 3,199
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It is propaganda.
Just like the American Declaration of Independence.
It is meant to continue to draw support, for "the cause."
The South saw that their political power was decreasing, especially with the election of a 3rd party (Republicans).
But the flag is not? The flag is just as much a part of the propaganda, prescribed to get people on board and feeling national pride - something they can identify with. Either way, I have shown that the cause that southerners were fighting for was their rights, and specifically their right to hold slaves, have slaves returned to them, and the offense that they can not have slaves in new territories. I am sorry if that bursts your bubble and your view on what the south was fighting for, but it is in ink and there is not much you can do to change it.
It was also flown by Confederate army units, during the Civil War.
Allow me to help you.
You don't get to omit the facts that you don't like, then claim to be better than everyone else.
I don't really understand how you think you are "helping" me... I laid out all the facts way back. You're just kind of half-catching up now.
Are you contending that Somalia copied the flag from Florida? You know that is crazy talk, right? Did you have any evidence supporting that outlandish proposition? Do you think these flags are copies of the blue bonnie too?
View attachment 67118195
View attachment 67118196
View attachment 67118197
View attachment 67118194
Wrong colors. But, I'm sure you already figgered that out. Maybe you haven't...LOL!!!
Nonsense. The 13 colonies declared their independence as a single entity so at no point before OR after creation of this country did they see themselves as individuals in any sense of the word. Do you not realize this yet? That there is no point in the history of the 13 colonies where any of them could have seen themselves or even acted as sovereign states? If so show me how?
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Are you familiar with the Articles of Confederation?
What do you imagine they meant when they said, "Each state retains its sovereignty?"
Are you familiar with the Articles of Confederation?
What do you imagine they meant when they said, "Each state retains its sovereignty?"
I don't fly the confederate flag, but it is a symbol of rebellion. How is that different than OWS, the Don't Tread On Me flag, etc? I think most people's objections are the racial connotations, but that is more of a cultural thing. I've found that northerners consider it racist while southerners consider it to be more of a rebellion symbol against large central (northern) government. The American flag is a flag of rebellion and personal freedom as well.
Yeah, that's right. The articles of confederation pre-dated the constitution and had an extremely weak federal government, very strong state power. But, it failed. That's why they wrote the constitution- because they needed to vest much more power in the federal government and much less in the states.
Yeah, that's right. The articles of confederation pre-dated the constitution and had an extremely weak federal government, very strong state power. But, it failed. That's why they wrote the constitution- because they needed to vest much more power in the federal government and much less in the states.
I learned this kind of stuff in highschool. Makes you wonder what they are teaching people now adays.
It all depends on what you mean by the word "teach"
It was NEVER implied by me. You inferred it. Not my problem.
My entire point was that it's ironic for patriots to fly a non-patriotic flag. It wouldn't be ironic if they were actually traitors. They're not traitors and that's why I think flying the flag is so stupid.
So what do you think they meant when they said that each state would retain its sovereignty. Does this not imply that each state was sovereign?
Yeah. They still are.
That doesn't mean that succession is legal though.
I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't assume that whatever authority states had under the articles of confederation, they also have today. States had MUCH more power under the articles of confederation than they do under the constitution.
I'm assuming that you are agreeing that prior to creating their compact the states were sovereign nation-states.
Why would secession be illegal? Can you show me where in the constitution secession is prohibited?
Why would the states have less sovereignty now than when they decided to create their federation?
Er, why'd you double facepalm me? Are you saying that you didn't know that about the articles of confederation? Why do you think we moved from them to the constitution? The founders were very explicit about it many times. Several of the federalist papers are dedicated exclusively to arguing for why we needed a stronger federal government.
Now, don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean they wanted a super strong federal government and super weak states. But they definitely wanted the federal government to be much stronger than it was under the articles of confederation. The country was more or less on track to dissolve back into separate countries because the federal government was too weak to hold it together and they implemented the constitution to prevent that.
I'm assuming that you are agreeing that prior to creating their compact the states were sovereign nation-states.
Well, actually no. The articles of confederation were ratified 2 years before we really had won independence from England. So really before that they were colonies. But, if we went back and time and they didn't sign the articles of confederation or the constitution they probably would have turned into sovereign nation states.
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Well what succession is is a declaration that you are rejecting the whole constitution. You are saying you will no longer follow anything it says in there. So really, every line of the constitution prohibits succession. For example, the constitution says that the states must appoint representatives and senators. They're breaking that by succeding. It says that the states can't deny anyone due process under the constitution, but if they're no longer recognizing the constitution, then they aren't doing that. Etc. There is nothing more illegal than rejecting the law entirely.
They have agreed to be bound by the constitution, so they waived their power to do things the constitution prohibits.
Several of the federalist papers are dedicated exclusively to arguing for why we needed a stronger federal government.
You are speaking as if there is an alternative. Fact is the flag represents people who believe in states rights, that's a major reason the war was fought and that's the reason we fly Dixie and not the confederate states flag, we are still in the state's rights war. The fact that people are mis-educated(and I was one for a while) with the oversimplified public school version of the war means nothing to me. If I misinterpret something ignorance of fact is no excuse. I give no pass on outside proclamations of southerner's intent.Well, the "actual", literal, meaning of the flag is that it represents the confederacy during the civil war. That's the meaning they are objecting to. They aren't interpreting it, they're just sticking with the literal meaning. You are arguing that they should accept one particular alternative interpretation about federalism that you support and that they should assume that is what it means.
First off, anyone who sports the backwards Swastika is free to do so here, but if they do it while saying they support capitalism they are stupid, considering the bundesrepublic was a socialist state at the time that flag was flown. Next, slavery was not analagous to murder, considering that murder was always a heinous act, slavery was not considered so at the time. Again though, the biggest issues were economics and state's rights during the civil war, slavery was an issue that comprised both but was not the chief cause of the war, it was the last issue in a line of percieved abuses.Turn it around for a minute and maybe you'll see it in a different light. Say that you saw somebody walking around carrying a Nazi flag. You object to it and he tells you that you are misinterpreting it. He tells you that killing Jews was only part of the motive behind the Nazi's launching WWII. Mostly they were motivated by a desire to rid Europe of communists- a motive he supports- so he is carrying it around to symbolize his support for free market capitalism, not to show his support of the genocide of Jewish people. Do you think that would make it acceptable?
That is quite inaccurate, considering the German people themselves disavowed the Nazi party and all things related after the war ended.Now, like I said before, I really do believe that most southerners that fly the confederate flag honestly do mean to communicate a message other than support for slavery. I actually think it is mostly just flat out "southern pride", not the angle about federalism or slavery. But it isn't entirely different than the Nazi example either.
So you are really going to compare and contrast two unrelated evils? Seriously, slavery was wrong, but the north was not innocent in any part of the civil war, they levied crippling economic abuses upon the southern states for decades before the issue of slavery was considered. Then when Lincoln needed a selling point for the war he got in line with the abolitionist movement, not before. All in all whether you care to understand that the thinking was different back then it is slightly dishonest to compare slavery with the wholesale genocide of an innocent people.The symbol literally is the symbol of a regime that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans primarily in order to continue a 200 year long holocaust of systematically enslaving, beating, killing, raping and breaking up families because of the color of their skin. Did the confederacy also have some less objectionable, or maybe even laudable, goals? Sure they did. But that absolutely, emphatically, does not excuse what they did. People are well within their rights to be offended by a show of support for such a thing even if that isn't what the person doing it intended to communicate.
So you contend that the states that formed our current union were never sovereign states? But what do you make of this clause in the articles of confederation?
They clearly were under the impression that they were sovereign states, no?
The constitution lays out the rules for the federation and the rules for the member states. I see no prohibition on any of the member states from leaving the union, in which case, none of the lines in the constituion would apply to them, since they would not be members. The constitution only applies to those who belong to the union.
A treaty with no language specifically describing its termination is assumed to be "at will". This means that the members of the treaty may leave whenever they wish.
Well what succession is is a declaration that you are rejecting the whole constitution. You are saying you will no longer follow anything it says in there. So really, every line of the constitution prohibits succession. For example, the constitution says that the states must appoint representatives and senators. They're breaking that by succeding. It says that the states can't deny anyone due process under the constitution, but if they're no longer recognizing the constitution, then they aren't doing that. Etc. There is nothing more illegal than rejecting the law entirely.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?