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.

[Sprite518]

Sorry guys, but this is the least of my concerns.


I am more worried about the present day. You know the war on terror, taxes, illegal immigration... I am not living in the past.

[M. Espinola]

We both know the Bible has been used for almost two thousand years to justify such things as slavery, crusades and even the Holocaust. I am not saying you ever pulled that stunt.

For every pencil neck just prior to the Civil War who quoted Scripture supposedly 'validating slavery', there were just as many stating the Bible stated it was immoral and must end in a free nation who fought to end 'tax slavery without representation' from the Crown.

The only ones who totally comprehended slavery were the slaves. For the last couple of evening the new version of the Ten Commandments was on TV. On the weekend the version we recall shall be on. It clearly shows those enslaved longed for freedom and fought for it.

Slave masters should never wonder why slaves fight to be free.

[M. Espinola]

"I am more worried about the present day. You know the war on terror, taxes, illegal immigration... I am not living in the past."

It's strange how the most fanatical neo-confederates rave on about their 150 year old agenda, as if skyrocketing gas prices, Iranian nuclear lunatics hell bent on total war, and waves of invading, anti-American illegal aliens do not, nor will not ever effect their little, self-inflicted fantasy world.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Punctuation and tense usage has changed over the years and does not mean what you WANT them to. I guess you believe if they wrote "filly" they meant a horse.

Hamilton was speaking in a theoretic sense of state sovereignty but Madison exposed this as mere rhetoric. (This may be the only instance of my agreeing with Madison over Hamilton) But since the constitution was designed to remove most of that sovereignty it makes no difference with regard any "right" of secession.

Federalist 15 through 22 were devoted to showing why a nation of sovereign states COULD NOT survive. These papers surveyed the history of the Greek confederacies (the Lycian, Achaean, and Amphictyonic Leagues), the German, the Swiss and the Dutch confederacies and conclusively showed that they were ineffectual and destructive of Liberties. They, like the American, failed because the sovereignties of the parts made the whole impotent.

As he said of the Germans "The fundamental principle on which it rests, that the empire is a community of sovereigns, that the diet is a representation of sovereigns and that the laws are addressed to sovereigns, renders the empire a NERVELESS BODY, incapable of regulating its own members, insecure against external dangers, and agitated with unceasing fermentations in its own bowels." FP 19 Hamilton

This danger and weakness was removed by the Constitution having jurisdiction over INDIVIDUAL American citizens not just states as under the Articles. "But if we are unwilling to be placed in this perilous situation; if we still will adhere to the design of a national government, or, which is the same thing, of a superintending power, under the direction of a common council, we must resolve to incorporate into our plan those ingredients which may be considered as forming the characteristic difference between a league and a GOVERNMENT; we must EXTEND the authority of the Union to the persons of the citizens, --the only proper objects of government." FR 15 Hamilton

Of course, this is another nail in the coffin of secession since not only were the States tied into an indissoluble Union by design but the citizens owed allegiance to the national government not just to their states. ONLY through the mechanism of the Constitution itself could it be changed not through rebellion in some of the states.

Hamilton not only foresaw eventual rebellions but spoke explicitly of the ability and duty of the Union to put them down with military force if necessary. In fact, only through having the government operate directly upon citizens can Civil War be averted. "It seems to require no pains to prove that the States ought not to prefer a national Constitution [the Articles] which could only be kept in motion by the instrumentality of a large army continually on foot to execute the ordinary requisitions or decrees of the government. And yet this is the plain alternative involved by those who wish to deny it the power of extending its operations to individuals." FP 16 Hamilton

No the UN is not "uncomfortable" to me merely irrelevant it any of our discussion.

[Gianni]

And to carry it four score years into the future, would you position be that even had the confederacy had been recognized as a sovereign nation by any of the other nations of the world, they would still be a part of the United States until the U.S. recognized their sovereignty? Isn't that the logical conclusion of your lame-ass position?

The point was to expose the idiocy of your lame-ass position by demonstrating that the litany of things that you claim made the US an independent, sovereign nation just weren't good enough when it comes to the Confederacy. Any and all of the things you listed were just as true in 1860 as they were in 1776, yet it is you who insists that the CSA never existed, while the USA was somehow a consolidated nation which preexisted the revolution, much to the surprise of anyone living in it at the time.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton was not speaking of state sovereignty AFTER the constitution was ratified but of the THEORY of the Articles.

[Sprite518]

Exactly! I understand there are people that love a certain part history. You have WWII Buffs, Vietnam Buffs, etc...

Today we live in historical times. How can people be more interested in something that occurred a long time ago? However, perhaps during the War between the States you had people that were more concerned with say The Revolutionary War even though they lived in historical times?

[4CJ]

That "right" exists only in your imagination. It has nothing to do with the tenth amendment which was included as window dressing to soothe the unconvinced.

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?
Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803).

You think that Madison just APPEASED the states, and that the states just APPEASED themselves by ratifying the amendment? BWAHAHAHahahahahahahahaha - what a marooon!!!!

The fact that later states could not possibly have retained a "right" they never had shows that the 10th has never had anything to do with secession. It is not a Self Destruct Button for the Union.

The states seceded from Britain, the Articles of Confederation & Perpeutual Union. Even then, the 10th does not state that only preexisting powers were affected, it states that all powers not delegated nor prohibited are held by the states.

No one has argued about the right of the PEOPLE to change their government but that is completely different from the right of the people of a state to do so for the National government without going through the constitutional procedures of amendment.

Dude, the congress proposed a 'national' government. The convention REJECTED that proposal. It's a FEDERAL government. The founders, ALL of them - voting by STATES in convention, rejected a national government. The STATES, voting in convention by STATES, ratified a federal government.

Why do you believe Madison told Hamilton that "once in the Union always in the Union" if secession was a possibility?

First I don't BELIEVE it. Secondly can you provide a source for the attributed quote, because I think you're lying.

Since secession was completely contrary to the spirit of and intention of Constitution there was no need to have anything forbidding it.

To JOIN the union created between the states ratifying the Constitution, a state had to SECEDE from the aforesaid Articles of Confederation & Perpetual Union, so it would have been an act of INSANITY to prohibit secession. DUH!

And there was no means of getting out of the Union without the approval of the Congress so adding such verbiage is unnecessary. 4CJ's cherry picked quotations do not make that claim AFTER the Constitution was passed.

Cherry picked? 3 of the 4 justices held that New Hampshire could withdraw herself from the union - no conditions, no appeals to Congress, no appeals to other states, no begging for permission, just simply withdraw on her own volition. The date of that decision was 24 Feb 1795. For your edification and discernment, 1795 was AFTER The ratification of the Constitution.

Besides stating that a state could withdraw from the union, it's also a testimony to the fact that the states are SOVEREIGN. Countries can join the UN, and leave unilaterally. States can join the union, and leave unilaterally. It's a very simple concept.

The RAT Rebellion was just one type of insurrection the Founders warned about which could be expected from factions motivated by selfish reasons. That was why they explicitly provided the means of putting them down right in the Constitution.

Explicitly? Put down a rebellion? Prior to the 14th Amendment, the word rebellion was only used in Article I §9 ['The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it']. The convention twice voted DOWN proposals to authorize the use of federal force against a state, and Article IV requires that such force can only be used 'on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)'.

[Gianni]

We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners, having no particular affinity or connexion with the United States.

[rustbucket]

Hamilton not only foresaw eventual rebellions but spoke explicitly of the ability and duty of the Union to put them down with military force if necessary. In fact, only through having the government operate directly upon citizens can Civil War be averted. "It seems to require no pains to prove that the States ought not to prefer a national Constitution [the Articles] which could only be kept in motion by the instrumentality of a large army continually on foot to execute the ordinary requisitions or decrees of the government. And yet this is the plain alternative involved by those who wish to deny it the power of extending its operations to individuals." FP 16 Hamilton

And, of course, there is this from Hamilton [NY ratification debate]:

It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government.

[rustbucket]

We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners, having no particular affinity or connexion with the United States.

Interesting, thanks.

I see that the rest of that sentence dealt with Rhode Island not threatening the revenue of the United States. Even so, Congress threatened (and maybe passed) tariffs on imports from Rhode Island and North Carolina since they had not ratified the Constitution. They treated these two states just like foreign states because that is what they were.

Perhaps if the Confederacy had not threatened the economic livelihood of the Northern states by retaining the tariff levels of 1857 instead of going along with the Morrill tariff, Lincoln would not have provoked war. However, even if the Confederacy had used the same tariff levels as the North, the North would have had a severe balance of payments problem without Southern exports. The North would have suffered inflation, and Lincoln might have still been tempted to provoke war.

[RightWinger]

Chickens!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Unfortunately for the South the madmen which led it did not pay attention to those warnings or they would have never attacked the United States forces. But, like other tyrants, they made their mistake and the entire region paid for their folly for the next hundred years.

Hamilton argued precisely the same at the convention as in the Federalist that the only way to avoid civil war was by increasing the power of the Union by ensuring that the Constitution and government had direct impact upon the citizens without the necessity of State intervention. Of course, the DS argue that the constitution does not do that but that is just one more example of them being incorrect about almost any historic event.

[4CJ]

Gentlemen, you're confusing him with FACTS. In honour of the moment, why not revisit the Ballad of Ft. Jeff Davis, penned by GopCapitalist for the edification of one Capitan Refugio/Jaguartype, based on claims by CR/J that Ft. Davis was CAPTURED by Union forces (it was deserted!):

"THE BALLAD OF FORT JEFF DAVIS"

In 1860 the temperature increased
So we went with Genr'al Carlton cross the desert to the east.
We loaded up our hard tack but it fell a little short
Then we fought hallucinations there at old Jeff Davis' fort.

CHORUS:
We fired our guns and the mirage kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Rio Grand-e to the Gulf of Mexico.

We looked 'cross the desert and we see'd the rebels come.
Some bouncen apparitions of'em beatin' on the drum.
They zagged across the evening sky an floated through the night
We tried to shoot then cap'n said "ain't dat the Marfa light?".

CHORUS:
We fired our guns and the mirage kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Rio Grand-e to the Gulf of Mexico.

Old Carlton said we could camp there for a bit
So we had a great big weenie roast, that fort it looked like sh*t
We slept inside the baracks on the dusty earthen floor
Till the injun's came a stirrin an they made off with the door!

CHORUS:
Well, we fired our guns and Apaches kept a'comin.
There soon was twice as many as there was a while ago.
They came right back an' we began to runnin'
Back up the Rio Grand-e from the Gulf of Mexico.

We fired at the injuns till the ammo horde was down down
So we grabbed ourselves a cactus & we fought another round.
Stuffed it full of carpetbags and dried up desert mud
But when we touched the powder off, fizz! It was a dud!

CHORUS:
Yeah, we tripped through the sinkholes and we ran through the cactus
We flopped across the desert where the scorpion wouldn't go.
We ran so fast old Fort Davis couldn't keep us
And we left the Rio Grand-e and the Gulf of Mexico

We pulled back to the mill site there in old El Paso town.
And we told 'em bout the battle with the ghost rebs we had found.
We'd made a charge an taked the place but time was runnin' short
Yet we struck a blow to Richmond now by takin' Davis Fort!

Yeah, we tripped through the sinkholes and we ran through the cactus
We flopped across the desert where the scorpion couldn't go.
We ran so fast old Fort Davis couldn't keep us
And we left the Rio Grand-e and the Gulf of Mexico.

Flip, two, three four,
Flop, two three four,
Flip, two three four,
Flop...

Maybe we can get GopCapitalist to pen a version for JSUAFI regarding sovereignty.

[Gianni]

The letter was essentially a preemptive strike by Rhode Island, since the Senate had already considered measures to impose what amounts to an embargo in response to alleged smuggling. The goal of the senate was to force ratification, the house had laid it aside - the speech surrounding it discussed the wrong-headedness of attempted coersion, interestingly enough, and that RI would be correct in hostility toward the US were such measures to be taken.

Must not the Rhode Islanders, like the Bostonians, detest the curel attempt, resent it, and, but their resentment, may not the consequences be too much like those which followed in the case alluded to? [Gianni note: outbreak of war] May they not be applauded by true republicans throughout the world?

[Non-Sequitur]

The point was to expose the idiocy of your lame-ass position by demonstrating that the litany of things that you claim made the US an independent, sovereign nation just weren't good enough when it comes to the Confederacy. Any and all of the things you listed were just as true in 1860 as they were in 1776, yet it is you who insists that the CSA never existed, while the USA was somehow a consolidated nation which preexisted the revolution, much to the surprise of anyone living in it at the time.

Nonsense. In your babbling you overlook the fact that the United States was recognized by other sovereign nations while the confederacy was not, claims to the contrary regarding Saxe-Coburg nothwithstanding. So in the eyes of the world no, the confederacy did not exist.

[rustbucket]

Today we live in historical times. How can people be more interested in something that occurred a long time ago?

Where is Santayana when you need him?

[4CJ]

Nonsense. In your babbling you overlook the fact that the United States was recognized by other sovereign nations while the confederacy was not, claims to the contrary regarding Saxe-Coburg nothwithstanding. So in the eyes of the world no, the confederacy did not exist.

Bravo Sierra! I have my ggggrandfathers parole under date of 15 Jul 1863:

That I will not take up arms again against the United States, nor serve in any military, police, or constabulary force in any Fort, Garrison, or field work, held by the Confederate States of America, against the United States of America nor as guard of any prisions, depots, or stores nor discharge any duties usually performed by Officers or soldiers against the United States of America, until duly exchanged by the proper authorities.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm sure you can find a lot of things referring to the confederate states of america. So?

[M. Espinola]

"Where is Santayana when you need him?"

That was a good one! :)