Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
...he was stunned to see two large Confederate flags flying from trucks...emblazoned with the words "The South Shall Rise Again." I'm stunned, too, that people still think it is cool to fly this flag. Our society should bury these flags -- not flaunt them...because the Confederate flag symbolizes racial tyranny to so many... ...This flag doesn't belong on city streets, in videos or in the middle of civil discussion. It belongs in our past -- in museums and in history books -- along with the ideas it represents.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansas.com ...
LOL!
Indeed. The South did issue their unconstitutional secession declarations and proclaim themselves an independent nation. That is historical fact. Unfortunately the rest of the world looked at their statements and proclamations and yawned. Nobody considered them a sovereign nation, nobody treated with them as such, in the eyes of the world community they were a rebellious part of the U.S. That, too, is historical fact.
To deny this, is tantamount to claiming that in 1776 the independent United States of America was naught but a legal fiction existing solely in the minds of George Washington, Patrick Henry, and a few other malcontents.
In the world community it was, up until the point where France and Spain agreed with them and recognized the U.S. as a free and sovereign nation.
None of which changes the fact that any Individual may, at any time, freely Secede from his Government for any reason whatsoever -- or even for no reason at all (I have the Right to renounce my United States citizenship at any time, if I so desire).
So long as you go about it legally, yes.
Ergo, unless you believe that the Federal Government, in response to an Individual's renunciation of his United States Citizenship, should immediately bring military force to bear against that Individual in order to compel him to remain subject to the US Federal Government, there can be logical argument against the absolute and unqualified Right of Secession for any reason whatsoever -- or no reason at all.
Do you believe that an individual is within their rights to steal another's property, repudiate debts that they owe, threaten another individual, and then renounce their U.S. citizenship and expect to escape the consequences of their action? If so, then you are a supporter of the Southern actions. If, however, you believe that a person cannot do those things and expect to hide behind the law then you can't support the Southern actions of unilateral secession.
A state cannot force its actions on another state. Kansas has one set of concealed carry laws, Missouri has another. A Kansas citizen cannot go into Missouri and demand a permit if they do not meet Missouri requirements merely because they have a Kansas permit. Likewise a Kansas citizen cannot carry in a state that forbids concealed carry merely because they can in Kansas. A state's laws cannot carry over the border unless the other state permits it.
Queer marriage?
In Kansas the state Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman. A homosexual couple cannot come into the state and file as a married couple, state law forbids it and just because Massachusetts says that they're married does not make them so here. An action that is legal in one state is not automatically legal in another. Nevada has legalized prostitution, that doesn't mean hookers are free to do so here.
Illegal immigration?
Last time I checked illegal immigration was a federal matter, not a state one. Illegal immigration?
"Legally", Shmegally. The question is whether or not an Individual has a Natural Right to Renounce his Citizenship.
Do you believe that an Individual has a Natural Right to Renounce his Citizenship?
Put another way, do you believe that Rights are granted by God directly to Individuals, or do you believe that Rights are mere "legal" privileges we enjoy at the convenience of the Government?
Answer that, and we can move on to the secondary issues you raise. But answer that first.
No, hating is an attitude and you have plenty of it. It comes through in your posts.
It’s good to hear that you manage to control yourself at the CW Roundtable. The other members likely wouldn’t appreciate you jayhawking their meeting. It’s better that you save the more unpleasant aspects of your nature for those of us on the internet.
That’s fair enough. Of course Lincoln did manage to put a large number of those Northerners in prison.
Raised in northern California and have our base in the USA in the Midwest (north of the Ohio River), and I have flown the Confederate flag on a staff lowered appropriately to the Stars & Stripes in front of my own house. Not only does the flag not bother me, but some of my neighbors complimented the display. I received no negative remarks at all.
But the power to admit a state to the Union is a power delegated to the United States, specifically the Congress. Once in the power to approve the splitting of stated or combining of states is also a power reserved to Congress. The power to approve or disapprove the changing of a states border by a fraction of an inch is also reserved to Congress. Implied in all of this is the power to approve a state leaving altogether.
The power to take any action that has a negative impact on the other states are also denied to the states. They cannot lay imports on the goods of other states, cannot enter into leagues against them cannot declare war against them or refuse to recognize their public acts. They cannot deny citizens of one state the rights their own citizens have. They cannot refuse to extradite fugitives. Given these kinds of actions are denied the states, then by implication unilateral secession and the negative impact it had on the remaining states is a power denied as well.
A whole lot of implying going on there vice what is actually written. We simply have a difference in interpretation.
What is true of any Individual is therefore, necessarily, logically true of any Group of Individuals (and therefore of any of the several States).
I wish the rebs had followed that principle when the 1861 Greeneville convention of East Tennessee expressed the desire for the region to secede from the rest of the state and remain in the Union.
Of course when Confederate lip service to noble ideals conflicted with power lust, principles lost. The CSA was nothing but a power grab for slavery which was only sometimes obscured with appeal to the higher American principles.
I haven’t posted on one of these threads in a long time, mainly because I’ve been ill, but I see that the PC-Cons (Politically Correct Conservatives) are still going strong.
Really, there was no significant concern over displaying a Rebel Flag until the early 1990s. Even most “liberals” didn’t get their little panties in a twist over it since they didn’t see it as an issue that could be used to divide the GOP.
That all changed when race-baiting leftist Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois played the race card during a routine renewal of the congressional trademark for a Confederate women’s organization. The renewal had been expected to pass on a non-controversial voice vote, but Moseley-Braun, who had built a political career in Chicago by painting herself a victim of “racism”, hit the floor and began howling about how horrified she was that a logo containing a Rebel Flag was being given congressional sanction. She even pretended she was about to faint. Her Democrat colleagues immediately winked at one another, realizing that Moseley-Braun may have just struck gold with a new issue for leftists to use to bash and smear conservatives. So Senator Dianne Feinstein ran over and “held” Moseley-Braun up during the rest of her tirade, lest the poor little “racism” victim collapse in a heap on the floor.
If the GOP had simply stood firm and defended the logo as a harmless symbol of many people’s ancestry and heritage, the Moseley-Braun ploy would likely have failed. But as with the current immigration bill, the mere charge of “racism”, no matter how phony, sent about half of the Republicans scurrying for cover. Thus about half of the GOP senators, all of whom were prepared to vote for the trademark renewal just minutes before, did a big 180 degree turn and joined Moseley-Braun in denouncing the “shocking” idea that a symbol of “hate” would be granted a congressional patend. About half the GOP stood firm, but the defections, combined with nearly all the Democrats, sent the renewal bill down to defeat.
From that point on, the left knew it could turn most Republicans into a quivering mass of jelly by accusing them of supporting the Rebel Flag. They also knew that GOP abandonment of the flag wouldn’t gain the party a single additional vote from blacks (the supposed “victims” of Rebel Flag displays) but would cost them conservative votes. And the left also counted on PC-Cons to carry their agenda onto conservative forums such as FreeRepublic. PC-Cons desire nothing more than to be patted on the head by “liberals”. They live and breathe to be assured by “liberals” that they’re good, nice conservatives and not the evil, hate-filled variety (like Ronald Reagan).
And, most important of all, once a large portion of the GOP chose to side with the left on the Rebel Flag issue, it set in motion a process that will inevitably lead to the American Flag and the Bill of Rights being voided, and our Founding Fathers being demonized. Old Glory flew over the institution of slavery longer than any flag of the Confederacy. So in about twenty years (it’s a little early for the push to begin right now) we’ll be told that the American Flag “offends” blacks (because of slavery & Jim Crow), Latinos (because the flag was waved by the people who “stole the southwest from them”), Asians (because the flag flew during the era of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Japanese internment), Native Americans, etc, etc, etc....
Anyone who doesn’t see this coming is blind.
And the Founding Fathers....Washington, Madison, Jefferson, et al....will have their statues & memorials cast down, have their names purged from public buildings, and so on. Not now, not next year, but within the lifetime of the younger members of this discussion board. And the Bill of Rights (”the insidious work of slave owners”) will be voided.
And it won’t just be the kooky left doing these things. The PC-Cons will join right in. A few might wake up, but most won’t. They’ll be right here on FreeRepublic accusing supporters of the American Flag of being insensitive to the feelings of people of color (at best) and of outright race hatred (at worst).
As far as the Greeneville convention, you're certainly correct.
The Southern States enjoyed a Natural Right to Secede from the US Federal Government, and Greene County enjoyed a Natural Right to Secede from Tennessee and seek re-admission to the USA.
Obviously, it was morally wrong for Tennessee to deny Greene County's Natural Right of Secession, just as it was morally wrong for the US Federal Government to deny the Southern States' Natural Right of Secession.
Glad we're in complete agreement.
Lincoln’s administration took the position of George III during the Revolution. A claim of political independence is Rebellion needing to be crushed by force. This wasn’t lost on the British Prime Minister of the time, who corresponded with Lee after the War, and who sympathized with the Confederacy.
It’s interesting to note that during the Revolution the Crown offered freedom to slaves who would support Britain against the Rebels. If freeing slaves and putting down rebellion justifies Lincoln’s war on the South, then it also justifies the Crown’s war against the American rebels.
Let’s see if one of our yankee apologists can weave a consistent argument for defending the first rebellion while opposing the second.
Good post.
Actually the first rebellion against the Federal Government was more than justified when the Government started to tax whiskey.
The Greeneville convention didn't only speak for Greene County, but the whole of East Tennessee. The problem for the Confederates was that there was a vital railroad from the Deep South to Virginia running through the region. Also the region contained the CSA's only domestic copper source and an important percentage of southern food agriculture.
And the secessionists took the position of Hitler during the Beer Hall Putsch.
Thus summing up the Southron viewpoint on the Constitution very nicely.
Answer that, and we can move on to the secondary issues you raise. But answer that first.
I did, in message 862. Didn't you read it?
And it comes dripping through on your's as well. What shall we do about it?
It’s good to hear that you manage to control yourself at the CW Roundtable. The other members likely wouldn’t appreciate you jayhawking their meeting. It’s better that you save the more unpleasant aspects of your nature for those of us on the internet.
Why wouldn't I. It's a nice group of people who agree to disagree on certain matters relating to the War of Southern Rebellion. Quite unlike the Southron fanatics around here.
And Unionists in the South fared little better, being jailed without trial or hung out of hand. Why is it acceptable in your view for Unionists to be punished without trial and not Southern supporters?
Perhaps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.