Confederate Flag (stickers etc...boo)

[Huckleberry]

equals



as far as I'm concerned. Flags symbolizing the taking up of arms against the United States of America.

[Ksyrup]

Warm out today.

Warm yesterday.

Even warmer today.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

KWhit -- I believe you're failing to make an important distinction between "opposing integration" & "opposing Federally-ordered integration".

You're welcome to disagree, but I believe that it's a valid distinction, albeit infinitely more distinctive today than in 1956.

I'll even go so far as to say that the circumstances of legal integration are a major component of the poor state of racial affairs in Georgia today.

I'll agree with you that Georgia lawmakers were certainly making the point that the state should have the ability to decide to integrate or not. That's why they took a symbol from the confederacy. Sure, it was partially a states-rights vs. federal-rights issue to the GA lawmakers. But let's face it, at its core, opposition to integration was because white people wanted to keep black people as far away from them as possible.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

equals



as far as I'm concerned. Flags symbolizing the taking up of arms against the United States of America.

Then you should learn more about the men who fought under the former.

(Heck, probably the latter too for that matter, there were honorable men who fought under it as well).

FWIW, we're about as far apart on this subject as we can be, to the point that your comment probably qualifies as "use of fighting words" if it was made in my physical presence ... but I sincerely respect your willingness to say what you believe without trying to dance around it.

Given the tracks that my train of thought around this subject usually follow, the word "honorable" comes to mind as being appropriate.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Personall, I couldn't care less about a Confederate flag on a car, and I admit I'm surprised about the fervor presented in the first post. Get over it - the guy chooses to mess up his car/truck, so what?

When I see a Confederate flag, I don't think racism...really I just see pride in living in the south (though I don't think I'd ever go so far as to put such a flag on my car that could POSSIBLY denote something negative like that - then again, I do walk around with a t-shirt that says "Your favorite band sucks"). Really, Texans do the same thing - putting their flag on their car, "don't mess with Texas", etc. I guess the only differences are the additional connotations that the Confederate flag has attached to it. Again, personally, I see very little difference, ymmv.

The connatations that fought for slavery and what not - I guess that doesnt make much of a difference ? Hey, its their car - and they can put what they want on it. But everytime I see one, I'm inclined to think of some dumb redneck as well. Its a symbol of treason (hilarious given the self-proclaimed "patriots" ) and racism - pretty hard to distance those things from it.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

KWhit -- I believe you're failing to make an important distinction between "opposing integration" & "opposing Federally-ordered integration".

You're welcome to disagree, but I believe that it's a valid distinction, albeit infinitely more distinctive today than in 1956.

I'll even go so far as to say that the circumstances of legal integration are a major component of the poor state of racial affairs in Georgia today.

That may be, but did Georgia and most of the South have any record to suggest they would have conceded these basic human rights themselves ? Perhaps a secession would have been for the best. I'm sorry Jon, but when a state fails to show even a basic amount of respect to its citizens, it deserves the federal government to mandate rights its too chickenshit to enforce.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I'll agree with you that Georgia lawmakers were certainly making the point that the state should have the ability to decide to integrate or not. That's why they took a symbol from the confederacy. Sure, it was partially a states-rights vs. federal-rights issue to the GA lawmakers. But let's face it, at its core, opposition to integration was because white people wanted to keep black people as far away from them as possible.

I don't disagree with you, in fact, I was sort of making the same point (or at least intended to) -- that I believe the former (state v. federal) is much more
an issue for those of us living today than for those who lived through that era.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Perhaps a secession would have been for the best.

I agree wholeheartedly ... but that was sorta the point of the whole exercise wasn't it?

I rarely use the phrase "Occupied City of Atlanta" without a certain amount of sincerity.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't disagree with you, in fact, I was sort of making the same point (or at least intended to) -- that I believe the former (state v. federal) is much more
an issue for those of us living today than for those who lived through that era.

Fair enough. I thought it sounded like you were agreeing with me, but then I came to my senses and thought, "Jon and I agreeing on something in this thread? No way!"

[illinifan999]

So it would be ok to drive around with a swastika bumper sticker with a flag with a swastika on it?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Fair enough. I thought it sounded like you were agreeing with me, but then I came to my senses and thought, "Jon and I agreeing on something in this thread? No way!"

Nah, we seem to be in agreement about the hierarchy of motivations in the 50's.
But fear not ... we likely draw different enough conclusions about the aftermath that we're well covered on the disagreement scale

[Toddzilla]

I understand - esp. having been born and raised in Virginia - the tremendous honor and virtue held by many men that fought under and defended the Confederate battle flag. Under different circumstances I may even display one myself...

HOWEVER

I also recognize the terrible hatred, bigotry, and negative associations most people - justifiably so - have for this flag and the people that display it now. I respect that - and them - and wouldn't display a Confederate flag for others to see and be subject to.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I couldn't tell if it was intentional or just the result of years of Red Wings brain damage (oh, it's good to have hockey back!)

SI

That said, Jon's reply was better than expected. He didn't just hit a homer run it was out of the park, over the Green Monster, into the Bay, all that jazz...

[revrew]

I personally wouldn't display the confederate flags because of the biblical principle of "not causing a weaker brother to stumble." Though the flag stands for noble causes as well as ignoble, and though I should be perfectly free to display such a flag, I would not use my freedom in that way, out of respect for those who would so stumble over it, seeing it as encouragement to be racist or rebellious, or out of respect for those who would view it in fear that I meant a racist message.

That said, I do object to considering the flag "treasonous." Treason agianst what? Though it's rarely ever discussed today, even some modern scholars read into our founding documents a consistutionally legitimate "right to secede." At the time, there were many that saw association with the United States as an individual state's prerogative, rather than a conscripted necessity. Many in law and government believed those states had the right to form a new nation. When they did, it was the United States of America that built an invasion army against the Confederate States of America and violated the latter's territory. Who took up arms against whom?

Frankly, all the heat and anger against the flag is largely unjustified. It is not a symbol of racism, not a symbol of rebellion, and not a symbol of treason (though individuals have taken it to mean all those things). Even so, good conscience and biblical direction would instruct us to reserve display of the flag except in situations whose purpose is clearly defined (such as a part of a historical display or even state flag).

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Then you should learn more about the men who fought under the former.

I know plenty about them. I'm from a former Confederate State, remember?

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

(Heck, probably the latter too for that matter, there were honorable men who fought under it as well).

FWIW, we're about as far apart on this subject as we can be, to the point that your comment probably qualifies as "use of fighting words" if it was made in my physical presence...

Why are they fighting words if you agree with the comparison? What I said is true, both flags were used to represent those actively engaged in warfare against the United States of America. And you yourself now concede that there were almost certainly honorable soldiers in both camps.

So what about a truthful comparison should drive you to physical retaliation?

[Pacersfan46]

Originally Posted by Bo Jackson's Hip

Much in the way that guns don't kill people, people do, flags are incapable of being racist(s).

Having a gun can imply your willingness to inflict harm upon a person though. Why else do you have a gun, but to hurt someone? Whether in self defense or otherwise. Apply that to the flag analogy.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Pacersfan46

Having a gun can imply your willingness to inflict harm upon a person though. Why else do you have a gun, but to hurt someone? Whether in self defense or otherwise. Apply that to the flag analogy.

two words

cat hunting

[Greyroofoo]

I'm from michigan and I don't really understand how the stars and bars stand for treason.

[Pacersfan46]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

two words

cat hunting

I'll be sure to hide my cat from you.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I'm from michigan and I don't really understand how the stars and bars stand for treason.

First, to clarify, this:



is not the Stars and Bars. It is a battle flag that was flown when engaged in warfare against the United States of America.

Now, Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:

Originally Posted by United States Constitution Article III

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Pretty straightforward. The Confederate Battle Flag represents the levying of war against the United States. That is the Constitutional definition of treason.

[JPhillips]

Who took up arms against whom?

First shots fired at Fort Sumter by Confederate forces.

I don't doubt that the Union would have invaded anyway, but your implication that the Union started the fighting is completely wrong.

[rkmsuf]

yeeeeeeeeeeeee haaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


tension breaker. had to be done.

[Schmidty]

This thread proves one thing: Flags are stupid.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

That is the Constitutional definition of treason.

But that definition seems to take us back to a question of whether the members of the CSA were part of the USA at the time of the fighting -- in their minds they weren't ... therefore rendering "treason" an impossibility (just as there's plenty to accuse, for example, Germany or Japan of during WWII, but treason isn't on the list).

As the saying goes, history (among other things) is written by the victors ... therefore, the War of Northern Aggression provided a precedent that States do not have the "right" to secede from the Union. In reality, what was proven was more along the lines that a given group of States did not have the might to successfully defend the right to secede and therefore lost it.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

First, to clarify, this:



is not the Stars and Bars. It is a battle flag that was flown when engaged in warfare against the United States of America.

Now, Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:


Pretty straightforward. The Confederate Battle Flag represents the levying of war against the United States. That is the Constitutional definition of treason.

How many Confederate leaders were convicted of treason after the North won the war? You would have thought, for such treasonous actions, they would certainly have hung Jefferson Davis. He's an easy mark, right? President of the CSA? He's the ringleader! How about Lee? He was responsible (indirectly) for thousands and thousands of Union deaths. When did his trial commence? I mean, they are traitors, right? Where is the criminal prosecution? These should be open and shut cases. Hang those men!!

The trick is the definition of war, yes? The North invaded the South time and time again. The Confederates could claim that they were simply defending themselves against an aggressive government out to subjugate the rights of the southern states. Victors make the rules (see Texas v. White in 1869), and the Civil War is no different. But the idea that the situation was as black and white (traitors vs. patriots) as you are making it out to be is preposterous.

[Adamski47]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Although I don't "do bumperstickers", I'll just say that I'd be happy to compare incomes with you sometime if you'd like. Bet you're closer to "mom's basement" than I am.

I'd take you to task in more detail & with more fervor, but then I see where you're from & figure you can't help it, it'd be like picking on someone with a birth defect.

This threat might work in your neck of the woods but seriously, a bet? Why don't we whip our dicks out and measure thoughs instead?

Take your thesaurus back to the county library before it is overdue.

I'm done reading this thread and am removing my subscription. Enjoy!

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Adamski47

This threat might work in your neck of the woods but seriously, a bet? Why don't we whip our dicks out and measure thoughs instead?

Take your thesaurus back to the county library before it is overdue.

I'm done reading this thread and am removing my subscription. Enjoy!

Jon hath been burned.

[JPhillips]

Aylmar: Lincon and Grant were the major reasons that Davis and other leaders didn't get executed. There was great popular support for punishing the South, but Lincoln's wishes and Grant's actions at Appomatox luckily carried the day. Both men realized that the fighting would end only if it could be replaced by a new national unity. Credit should also be given to Lee in particular for refusing to sanction a guerilla war.

Its very frustrating to read all of these "noble cause" arguments. The Civil War wasn't fought between an aggressive North and a passive South. Remember that the South fired the first shots, they stole tons of Federal property and they also invaded Northern territory numerous times. There was never any intention by either side to sit back and see if a peaceful resolution could be found.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Adamski47

This threat might work in your neck of the woods but seriously, a bet? Why don't we whip our dicks out and measure thoughs instead?

Take your thesaurus back to the county library before it is overdue.

I'm done reading this thread and am removing my subscription. Enjoy!

Spare me, you sanctimonious p.o.s. You were the one who raised the income issue, not me. I just decided to take you up on it, since you had decided to let your oh-so-wise "student" mouth write a check your ass isn't likely to be able to cash.

You took the shot at income-levels, I offered to prove just how far off base you are ... and we see how willing you are to go there, I believe that makes my point.

Come back & see us when you've grown up a little, m'kay. In the meantime, stick to your homework.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Adamski47

This threat might work in your neck of the woods but seriously, a bet? Why don't we whip our dicks out and measure thoughs instead?

Take your thesaurus back to the county library before it is overdue.

Sounds like you should spend some time there checking out a dictionary. thoughs? I mean, a typo I could see...but that's not even in the ballpark.

[rkmsuf]

you don't want me whipping my dick out and making you all feel inadequate



ps - It's big.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Its very frustrating to read all of these "noble cause" arguments. The Civil War wasn't fought between an aggressive North and a passive South. Remember that the South fired the first shots, they stole tons of Federal property and they also invaded Northern territory numerous times. There was never any intention by either side to sit back and see if a peaceful resolution could be found.

You could also look at Lincoln's order to resupply Fort Sumter. He knew it would lead to war well before he issued it. It can be argued that Lincoln needed a war to strengthen the resolve of the states remaining in the Union in order to put it back together again. The CSA made overtures to Lincoln before Sumter for a resolution. He spurned them. The inclusive branding of the south as traitors is probably just as frustrating for me as the noble cause argument is for you. As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[JPhillips]

Aylmar:I agree with you. I'm not arguing for a good/evil branding. Both sides knew that the decision to seceed meant war and both sides did all they could to destroy the other.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Spare me, you sanctimonious p.o.s. You were the one who raised the income issue, not me. I just decided to take you up on it, since you had decided to let your oh-so-wise "student" mouth write a check your ass isn't likely to be able to cash.

You took the shot at income-levels, I offered to prove just how far off base you are ... and we see how willing you are to go there, I believe that makes my point.

Come back & see us when you've grown up a little, m'kay. In the meantime, stick to your homework.

Gee, an income comparison between a student and someone in what, their mid-30's? Yeah, that's a reasonable comparison.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Gee, an income comparison between a student and someone in what, their mid-30's? Yeah, that's a reasonable comparison.

Again, I wasn't the one who raised the income issue, Mr. Yankee Know-It-All-Don't-Know-Jack brought it up.
I just thought it was time someone called it for the b.s. comment it was.

Somehow though, I'm not surprised that you would have a problem with it.
I really don't give a fuck, but I'm not surprised.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Again, I wasn't the one who raised the income issue, Mr. Yankee Know-It-All-Don't-Know-Jack brought it up.
I just thought it was time someone called it for the b.s. comment it was.

Somehow though, I'm not surprised that you would have a problem with it.
I really don't give a fuck, but I'm not surprised.

Is it a B.S. comment? Compare apples to apples.

Per capita income in 2004:
Michigan: $31,954
Georgia: $30,051

And to your other point, I'm really not surprised you're acting like a jerk, so I guess we're even.

[rkmsuf]

Ok, they are whipping their dicks out. Everybody clear out.

[Huckleberry]

Given that they were citizens of States that willfully joined the USA and that the Constitution gives Congress authority regarding the territory of the United States (Article IV), they were by definition - due to Congress' nonacceptance of the secession - still United States citizens occupying United States territory.

However, I agree with the decision not to execute their leaders. It was also made for the right reason, politically it enabled a return to one nation.

And, yes, the American Revolutionaries were treasonous. Revolutions necessarily require it. The argument regarding whether the South was as justified as the Colonies to commit their acts is a separate debate. It does not change the fact that both were acts of treason.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Ok, they are whipping their dicks out. Everybody clear out.

You don't really think they're going to need all that much room, do you?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Ok, they are whipping their dicks out. Everybody clear out.

But what about the people who want to watch?

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

But what about the people who want to watch?

I mean seriously, when does this ever happen.

Nobody settles things like this. Let's whip out our dicks to see who is bigger? Who does that?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I mean seriously, when does this ever happen.

Nobody settles things like this. Let's whip out our dicks to see who is bigger? Who does that?

Perhaps watching more gay porn is in order?

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Given that they were citizens of States that willfully joined the USA and that the Constitution gives Congress authority regarding the territory of the United States (Article IV), they were by definition - due to Congress' nonacceptance of the secession - still United States citizens occupying United States territory.

But it does not specifically mention the legality of secession. And therefore, in the mind of some, is subject to:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Jefferson described the tenth amendment as the "foundation of the Constitution". He argued that the states were not "united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government" and "whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force". In fact, in his railings against the Sedition Act, Jefferson expected the states themselves to "take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories".

Now, this doesn't sound like an unbreakable Union of states to me. It sounds like a set of independent entities working together to accomplish a goal that they could not accomplish on their own. You are implying that the states happily gave up their rights in order to form this union. To people like Jefferson and Madison, that was far from true. The states were the last line of defense against a central government that could easily transform itself into a monarchy.

Now, how much of this do I buy? I don't know. It's an interesting debate, though, that's for sure.

[Huckleberry]

I don't believe I implied any such thing. I am a very strong believer in States' rights and in the Tenth Amendment (but believe also very strongly in the Ninth Amendment and the rights I believe it affords the people against not only an overbearing federal government but also an overbearing State government).

The way I see it is that the Constitution places the People first, then the States, then the Nation.

But that doesn't change my opinion that the 10th doesn't apply here because Article IV gives Congress authority regarding the Nation's territory. Secession clearly involves the taking of the Nation's territory.

[Aylmar]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

But that doesn't change my opinion that the 10th doesn't apply here because Article IV gives Congress authority regarding the Nation's territory. Secession clearly involves the taking of the Nation's territory.

But the territory in the US doesn't belong to the federal government. It belongs to the people. The people of those states chose to take their ball and go home. They withdrew from the contract forming the United States. Therefore, there is no basis for enforcement of Article IV. That territory, once the letter of secession is signed, no longer belongs to the United States of America, assuming that it ever did.

Edit: Clarification - I believe Article IV is meant to be applied to property and/or territory purchased by the United States government, not the actual territory contained within the states themselves. That, by all indications, is a matter of the state's individual sovereignty and not governed by Article IV.

[JW]

What a fascinating argument. Many of you are making the mistake of layering today's understandings on people who lived and died a century and a half ago. Many of our understandings of what our country is about are a result of the Civil War, which was in part a culmination of the argument between two very different ideas of what the United States was. In addition to slavery, which was the catalyst that sparked the war, these two competing visions of America were in direct conflict and had been from the very beginning of the nation. The war decided the issue of slavery and the very idea of secession as a legitimate mechanism. But by the reasoning of some of you, the American flag itself is the flag of traitors. Did we not rebel against Britain?

As for the Confederate flag itself, it is quite unfortunate that the Confederate battle flag was usurped by racists and bigots as a symbol of their racism. That flag is forever tainted by that association.

[Huckleberry]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of, basically, contract law.

The idea that one can just decide they don't want to abide by a contract anymore and are therefore no longer subject to its requirements is ridiculous and would cause chaos. The Constitution, at its core a contract between the States, is no different.

Your clarification is a more cogent argument against my position. However, Article IV Section 3 makes no mention of any "purchase" requirement in its scope. Furthermore, the entire Section clearly shows to me that Congress was to be consulted regarding all changes in statehood.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by JW

But by the reasoning of some of you, the American flag itself is the flag of traitors. Did we not rebel against Britain?

I preemptively addressed that question in post #88 of this thread. Also, I do not hold the Stars and Bars - the presumptive National Flag of the Confederacy - to be a symbol of treason against the United States. I hold the battle flags of the Confederacy to be such.

[Easy Mac]

Come to the South some time and I think you'll get a completely different vibe for whether the North or the South was acting in a treasonous manner.

And why was South Carolina given so much shit for having the flag on their state house capitol? Georgia had it in their fucking flag, I think Mississippi does/has had it in their flag or at least displayed it prominently. Same with LA and AL, but you don't hear a peep from the NAACP. Hell they're still having a boycott because there is a monument with the flag on state house property. The NCAA said they wouldn't hold anymore tourneys in SC until they get rid of it. Perhaps it all comes down to revenue (since they'd never dare strip Atlanta of anything), but its seems a little contradictive, the NCAA's statements and the general politics of it all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

And why was South Carolina given so much shit for having the flag on their state house capitol?

That's because they believe you'll cave in. Georgia isn't getting any serious crap anymore because they already know we've got enough politicians who'll sell their souls for a few pieces of silver.

What SC, and all the rest, should do is tell the NCAA to shove their tournaments squarely up their misguided asses ... but there's a lack of honor & character in a lot of places, which is what these organizations are banking on.