Virginia County secretly removes Confederate flag from official seal

The Daily Press, Hampton Roads, VA ^ | March 2, 2006 | Associated Press

[Rebeleye]

The removal of the Confederate flag from Amherst County's official seal has upset Southern heritage groups, who contend residents weren't told of the change. County officials acknowledge the image was quietly removed in August 2004 to avoid an uproar.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You completely distort what is said in the amendment.

It does NOT say any powers were delegated by states to the federal government. It is clear from the discerning and honest that the delegation of all political power comes from the PEOPLE including that delegated to the states.

The rest of your butchery does not refute anything I said since it is all based upon the fallacy that States had ever been fully sovereign. Any sovereignty they had came ONLY as a result of the UNION which all the Founders knew and understood. It was only the half-assed Slaver "statesmen" who managed to forget this.

Our Constitution was explicitly written to underscore the necessity of UNION and to enhance and protect it. That magnificent paean to UNION, the Federalist Papers, underscores this in numerous places. "...the utility of UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people of every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries." FP-1
"It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under ONE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies... " FP 2 Jay has NO doubt about the answer as he continues "It has until lately been a received and UNCONTRADICTED opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to THAT OBJECT." "...Providence has been pleased to give this ONE connected country to ONE UNITED PEOPLE....This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, UNITED to each other by the strongest of ties, SHOULD NEVER BE SPLIT INTO A NUMBER OF UNSOCIAL, JEALOUS, AND ALIEN SOVEREIGNTIES....As a NATION we have vanquished our common enemies; as a NATION we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states....A strong sense of the value and blessings of UNION induced the PEOPLE, at a very early period to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it....[the failure of that government did not dissuade the PEOPLE from UNION but this ]"intelligent PEOPLE perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to UNION than enamored of liberty...observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being persuaded that ample security for both could ONLY be found in a NATIONAL GOVERNMENT more wisely framed..." [by removing MORE sovereignty from the states]

Jay also reminds his reader "It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but EVERY succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have INVARIABLY joined with the PEOPLE in thinking that the prosperity of AMERICA depended on its UNION. To preserve and perpetuate it was THE GREAT OBJECT of the PEOPLE in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt." His final words in FR 2 should have been remembered by the Traitors of 1860 "...whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, AMERICA will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet 'FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.'"

Thanks to the incredible leadership of Abe Lincoln that greatness was not allowed to be destroyed and the Traitorous scum leading the RAT Rebellion were defeated leading to the rise of the greatest Nation in the history of the world.

[Non-Sequitur]

Red Herring. Signing the treaty meant nothing until approved by the representatives of each individual 'sovereign' state.

Read the Articles some time. In Article 9 it clearly states that the United States will have sole authority to enter into treaties and alliances. Not the 'sovereign states' because that is explicitly forbidden in Article 6. So if Great Britan thought it was signing a treaty with 13 'sovereign and independent states' then it was sadly mistaken. The states had not the authority, only the country did.

[Non-Sequitur]

Red Herring. Signing the treaty meant nothing until approved by the representatives of each individual 'sovereign' state.

Read the Articles some time. In Article 9 it clearly states that the United States will have sole authority to enter into treaties and alliances. Not the 'sovereign states' because that is explicitly forbidden in Article 6. So if Great Britan thought it was signing a treaty with 13 'sovereign and independent states' then it was sadly mistaken. The states had not the authority, only the country did.

[4CJ]

I said since it is all based upon the fallacy that States had ever been fully sovereign.

You have a severely distorted opinion that you have yet to back up by facts (those things other than your opinion).

5 STATES seceded prior to 4 Jul 1776. New York not until August 1776. It was not a unilateral action. States ratified SEPARATELY. It is only the bizarro world moonbats who continue to overlook this.

The Federalist Papers were written by Hamilton, Jay and Madison in an attempt to coax New York to ratify [NOTE: NO other people, other than New Yorkers, could ratify for the state of New York]. Even then, the FP are NOT the Constitution, or any part of it.

Thanks to the incredible leadership of Abe Lincoln that greatness was not allowed to be destroyed and the Traitorous scum leading the RAT Rebellion were defeated leading to the rise of the greatest Nation in the history of the world.

Abe Lincoln wanted to have a LILY-WHITE AMERICA - as proven repeatedly by his own words. The secession of any state did not destroy the union - that union, led by Lincoln, continued to exist, and waged war illegally on the seceded states.

The secession of the states from the New England Confederacy was legal. The secession of the states from Britain was legal. The secession of the states from the Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union was legal. The secession of the states from the Constitution was legal.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have given Madison's opinion to you as to the meaning of sovereignty. You can not give ANY evidence that the states EVER acted as fully sovereign nations. They were created at the request of Congress.
In any case it is undeniable that Americans thought of themselves as Americans at the Founding. At first they considered themselves to be subjects of the King and loyal Englishmen. Then North American colonists then just Americans. I also quoted one of the Founders elaborating on this unity as well as Jay. So I have been speaking with the words of far more eloquent and enlightened men than just myself. It is a lie to claim the contrary.
Lincoln and the Union put down the Insurrection led against it. With all the Constitutional authority explicitly provided to be used against Insurrections and Rebellions. Lincoln fought to protect the Constitution and Union not because of his feelings or beliefs about Black people. But HE considered them human enough NOT to make SLAVES of them.
An outright racist who believes Blacks to deserve FREEDOM is far superior to any who claim to believe in equality while ENSLAVING blacks in any case.

Your arguments are getting dumber again.

[justshutupandtakeit]

While that was worth repeating it will pass through the deliberately obstuse like grease through a goose.

[Gianni]

Then you try and make it appear that the admission of states in pairs early in our history has something to do with their "equality" to other states when all but the most numb of numb-nuts knows that the pairing was done in an attempt to balance the Free and Slave state power in the Congress. It had NOTHING to do with state "equality".

Pairing was done in an attempt to balance the Free and Slave state power in Congress because once admitted, all states had equal representation and an equal share in power.

Your inability to 'get it' would appear that you fall somewhere below the most numb of numb-nuts by your own admission. Does ducking in behind Non and turning to discussion of whether or not Alabama is a 'real' state mean that you're done pursuing your own argument?

[Gianni]

Not sure what you're hoping to win here. Is there some nit point that I could care less about?

Why would the "United States" bargain for a treaty that required them to go back and beg the state legislatures for all the necessary concessions, if it held exclusive power?

Were they afraid of their own secret legal potency?

[Non-Sequitur]

Is there some nit point that I could care less about?

Given your respect for the truth, probably not.

Why would the "United States" bargain for a treaty that required them to go back and beg the state legislatures for all the necessary concessions, if it held exclusive power?

Proving once again that Iowa is indeed an acronym you ignore 9 other articles and latch on to one. Perhaps the answer is that actions taken by state authorities had to be undone by state authorities. I'm not aware of any provisions in the Articles of Confederation that allowed Congress to override them.

[Gianni]

Perhaps the answer is that actions taken by state authorities had to be undone by state authorities. I'm not aware of any provisions in the Articles of Confederation that allowed Congress to override them.

So then you're backing away from the exclusivity of the treaty power?

You won't find anything in the Articles saying anything anything which contradicts the fact that 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, I wouldn't think.

It is interesting, though, that you find that we were somehow a nation whilst the people were still known as His Majesty's Subjects. At what point did that happen?

[Non-Sequitur]

So then you're backing away from the exclusivity of the treaty power?

No. Only the United States could enter into treaties. The states played no part. If you will note the treaty says that the Unite States will 'ernestly recommend'. It didn't say that the United States will. If the states complied or not the Treaty was still not violated.

It is interesting, though, that you find that we were somehow a nation whilst the people were still known as His Majesty's Subjects. At what point did that happen?

You tell me. Where in the Treaty were we describes as his subjects?

[Gianni]

No. Only the United States could enter into treaties. The states played no part.

It seems clear from reading the Treaty of Paris (and not your posts) that the states played a significant part, specifically the thirteen united states with whom the crown entered the treaty, and the legislatures of said thirteen to whom the treaty makers were to make requests for restitution. It is clear from the treaty that the "United States" which negotiated the treaty was nothing but a proxy for the true sovereigns.

You tell me. Where in the Treaty were we describes as his subjects?

So prior to the Treaty, which recognized indepenedence, Americans were not British subjects? That is what you said... that we entered the treaty as a "country." When did that happen?

[4CJ]

I have given Madison's opinion to you as to the meaning of sovereignty. You can not give ANY evidence that the states EVER acted as fully sovereign nations.

India was a nation, and was a colony under Britain. At the same time numerous other countries were also British colonies. Georgia was not even a member of the Articles of Association in 1774, and declared her independence in early 1776.

The founding documents prove our sovereignty:
5 states, prior to the Declaration of Independence, separately declared their independence from all other powers on earth. Acts of a sovereign.
7 states then declare their independence - after their delegates have been given permission to do so [by their state not congress] - via the Declaration of Independence under date of 4 Jul 1776. Acts of a sovereign.
New York state - not congress - authorizes her delegates to sign in August 1776. Acts of a sovereign.
The DoI did not establish a government, the states were independent and sovereign. Some 4 years later the states formed a union [HINT: union is plural] of states ['Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.'].
For 4 years the states were completely independent of any power on earth, and had no sovereign. They did send DELEGATES to a congress, but that congress did not have sovereignty over them. The states were sovereign, having independent armies, navies, post offices, conducted diplomatic relations [hint: Congress is like the UN, not our sovereign].
The name of that Confederacy [NOT nation] is "The United States of America." The states were still sovereign.
The states secede from the AoC&PU - an act of a sovereign.
States independently ratify the Constitution over a period of years - the acts of sovereigns. Numerous states have clauses in the state constitutions declaring that they, the sovereign, can reclaim/resume their powers, and/or alter their government at any time. The acts of sovereigns.

Your position is that of a lunatic howling at the moon, declaring that your position is right simply because you say so.

An outright racist who believes Blacks to deserve FREEDOM is far superior to any who claim to believe in equality while ENSLAVING blacks in any case.

GOD believes we are all equals, yet He placed His own people into slavery (Joel 3:8, Deut 28:68 and others), placed Moses, Joseph and myriad others into slavery. Did God give a staff to Lincoln and have him demand from Davis to "Let my those people go [somewhere else]", and rain plagues down upon the Confederacy?

Do you think Lincoln is superior to God? What a maroon!!

[Non-Sequitur]

It seems clear from reading the Treaty of Paris (and not your posts) that the states played a significant part, specifically the thirteen united states with whom the crown entered the treaty, and the legislatures of said thirteen to whom the treaty makers were to make requests for restitution. It is clear from the treaty that the "United States" which negotiated the treaty was nothing but a proxy for the true sovereigns.

It seems clear from reading the Treaty of Paris (and your posts) that you're nuts. The United States is mentioned 18 times, Virginia only once. The treaty is between the United States and the Crown of Great Britain. It is signed by represntatives of the United States, not of Massachussetts and New York and Pennsylvania. The only sovereign nations represented at the table were Great Britain and the United States of America.

So prior to the Treaty, which recognized indepenedence, Americans were not British subjects? That is what you said... that we entered the treaty as a "country." When did that happen?

When France and Spain recognized the United States as a free and sovereign nation and treated with her as such. Roughly 7 years before the Treaty of Paris.

[Gianni]

Do you think Lincoln is superior to God? What a maroon!!

The answer to that will be of great interest.

[Gianni]

When France and Spain recognized the United States as a free and sovereign nation and treated with her as such. Roughly 7 years before the Treaty of Paris.

France and Spain granted the US sovereignty?

You're off the deep end.

As for the treaty of Paris, I've posted from it at great length in support of my arguments. Those who can read understand what it says.

[Non-Sequitur]

France and Spain granted the US sovereignty?

No they recognized it.

As for the treaty of Paris, I've posted from it at great length in support of my arguments. Those who can read understand what it says.

I've read all your arguements. With great amusement.

[Gianni]

[Gianni] That is what you said... that we entered the treaty as a "country." When did that happen?

[Non] When France and Spain recognized the United States as a free and sovereign nation and treated with her as such. Roughly 7 years before the Treaty of Paris.

[Gianni] France and Spain granted the US sovereignty?

[Non] No they recognized it.

Then you failed to answer the question. Please do so.

[Non-Sequitur]

Then you failed to answer the question. Please do so.

You've got to admit it's a really stupid question. Assuming that you have a point please come to it.

[Gianni]

It's not a stupid question at all, in fact it is the very core of our argument, which is why you're running from it.

You insist that the United States negotiated and ratified the Treaty of Paris as a country. At what point did they become a country? Where is it documented? Who authorized it?