Biden Wants Confederate Flag Off Grounds

Columbia, S.C. -- Sen. Joseph Biden, a Democratic presidential hopeful joining fellow Sen. Christopher Dodd at Martin Luther King Jr. holiday events, said Monday he thinks the Confederate flag should be kept off South Carolina's Statehouse grounds.

"If I were a state legislator, I'd vote for it to move off the grounds — out of the state," the Delaware senator said before the civil rights group held a march and rally at the Statehouse here to support its boycott of the state.

In Chicago, Sen. Barack Obama, also prominently mentioned in speculation about the White House sweepstakes in 2008, was a hit at a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition breakfast honoring King, even if he didn't deliver what much of the crowd clearly wanted: a declaration that he will run for president.

Obama received a standing ovation at the annual King scholarship breakfast when the Rev. Jesse Jackson introduced him with an approving reference to the Illinois Democrat's presidential aspirations.

"It's a long, nonstop line between the march in Selma in 1965 and the inauguration in Washington in 2009," said Jackson, the coalition's founder and a one-time presidential candidate himself.

Later, in an address at a King remembrance service at St. Mark's Church in suburban Harvey, Obama said: "I'm not making news today. I'm not here to make news. There will be a time for that."

More than six years after the Confederate flag was taken down from the South Carolina Capitol dome, its location in front of the Statehouse remains an issue at the heart of events celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy.

Jim Hanks stood across from the Statehouse with about 35 Confederate flag supporters.

Just exactly how would Florida seceding screw over Wyoming?

Walking out on debt and treaty obligations don't make those obligations go away. It means that fulfilling those obligations places a harder burden on the states remaining. Also, when Florida appropriates federal property it could be accurately said that said property belongs to all states and it's being taken without compensation. That's how.

Too complicated. The court cases would never end. Never.

The same can be said about any legal matter. But convenience alone is no reason to toss the law out the window.

Your attitude is scary: Nation-state above all else, including individual freedom.

No, my attitude is that ALL states are equal, ALL states have the right to be protected by the Constitution. Your attitude is that only the leaving states had any rights and that the Constitution existed to give them a club to beat up the remaining states. That, to me, is the scary position.

You need to re-read the Bill of Rights.

You might try reading the whole Constitution.

Then seek a legal remedy. Nations sue nations all the time.

ALL states have the right to be protected by the Constitution.

And ALL people have a right to be protected by the Constitution unless they give up citizenship here for another country. Then they are at the mercy of that country's rules, or lack of. Should these people be forced to continue to pay US taxes because we need the revenue?

This country wasn't founded on the state or nation. It was founded on For the People, By the People and Of the People. If some of those people choose to walk, then so be it.

That, to me, is the scary position.

Individual freedom is scary? That says a lot about you.

Then seek a legal remedy. Nations sue nations all the time.

Really? And in 1861 what was the legal remedy? What court was available for the U.S. to sue in?

And I notice you don't try to justify the Southern actions. Just say "Sue me."

No body is talking about paying U.S. taxes. But the Southern states abrogated responsibility for their share fo the debt, repudiated treaties, stole what they wanted and threatened the central U.S. And you want us all to believe the Constitution supported such actions. How nuts is that?

Individual freedom is scary? That says a lot about you.

Thinking the Constitution protects theft and being a dead-beat says a lot about you, too. As well as your notion that only those leaving had any rights that needed protecting.

This is disingenuous, at best.

Nonsense. Read the instructions the commissioners had. They were there to establish relations between the U.S. and the confederacy. Period. No talks to end secession. No offers to stop the rebellion. The only result acceptable to the delegation was acceptance of the legitimacy of their actions. Only after the U.S. had surrendered to their demands was there a vague offer to talk about 'matters and subjects interesting to both nations'.

And even if the offer to negotiate had been sincere, don't you think it was a little late? The South walks away from the debt, seizes what they want, and only then offers to compensate? Isn't that a bit like me taking your house and only then offering to pay for it? The time to settle those issues was before the South left, not after they had walked out on their responsibilities and seized what they wanted. If anything is disengenuous it's the suggestion that the South sincerely intended to pay for anything.

The time to settle those issues was before the South left, not after they had walked out on their responsibilities and seized what they wanted. If anything is disengenuous it's the suggestion that the South sincerely intended to pay for anything.

Congress spent the decade of the 1850s in acrimonious debate over whether secession was legal in the first place (throwing around terms like "treason" and "coercion") and you're saying the South should have engaged the North in thoughtful, sincere negotiations over compensation, pre-secession? You are ignoring the realities of the political climate.

Yes, I think the Southern states were prepared to pay. I also think they intended to institute free trade policies. But speaking of disingenuousness, let's not forget U.S. Secretary of State Seward's assurances to those same Confederate commissioners that Ft. Sumter would soon be evacuated.

Congress spent the 50's discussing slavery, but I'm not aware that sececssion was such a common topic for discussion. But regardless, you use that as an excuse to justify the actions the South took and that's fine. So long as you drop the sham that the Constitution protected such actions.

Yes, I think the Southern states were prepared to pay.

And I think that the rest of the states would have allowed the south to leave had they only negotiated a settlement beforehand. See? Opinions are fun, and mine are just as likely as yours. But since the South never made a serious offer, and since the North never negotiated before the secession we'll never know for sure.

I also think they intended to institute free trade policies.

Since one of their first acts was the implementation of a tariff that was protectionist in nature I think the evidence shows that to be false. But even if they had, what of it? Had the South set a zero tariff what impact would that have had on the North?

But speaking of disingenuousness, let's not forget U.S. Secretary of State Seward's assurances to those same Confederate commissioners that Ft. Sumter would soon be evacuated.

Seward had no authority to made those assurances. All the rebels needed to do was read Lincoln's speeches up to and including the inauguration to see the administration's position.

And in 1861 what was the legal remedy?

The north chose a military solution.

And I notice you don't try to justify the Southern actions

I don't have to. It's all well documented.

South Carolina Secession Declaration

No body is talking about paying U.S. taxes. But the Southern states abrogated responsibility for their share fo the debt,

You may not realize it, but this country's debt is paid through the collection of taxes.

Thinking the Constitution protects theft and being a dead-beat says a lot about you, too.

Oh please. This country was stolen at least twice; once from the British and once from the American Indian. Do you feel inclined to provide restitution to those two groups from your lofty perch?

As well as your notion that only those leaving had any rights that needed protecting.

As opposed to your notion that only the ones left have rights and, furthermore, those rights outweigh all others.

That's been the problem between the north and South all along. The north has always believed in equal rights as long as theirs are a little more equal.

The north chose a military solution.

The South chose a military solution, when they bombarded Sumter. The North fought the war that was forced upon them.

I don't have to. It's all well documented.

And where, exactly, does that justify theft and repudiating responsibilities?

You may not realize it, but this country's debt is paid through the collection of taxes.

And that debt was built up while the Southern states were a part, and they benefitted from it. Now all of a sudden they get to decide that they aren't responsible for their share of it? And you claim the Constitution protects that?

As opposed to your notion that only the ones left have rights and, furthermore, those rights outweigh all others.

Complete nonsense. All I'm saying is that in the question of secession there are two sides. Both have interests that need to be protected. Both have rights under the Constitution. But in your scheme of unilateral secession only one side counts. And that is wrong, whether you admit it or not.

That's been the problem between the north and South all along. The north has always believed in equal rights as long as theirs are a little more equal.

And from the very beginning the South always demanded, and got, additional rights for themselves. From the very beginning with the way that the Constitution computed the census. There were 3 million slaves in the south, considered property and not people, having no rights whatsoever. Yet those 3 million slaves added an additional 1.8 million to the Southern census and gave them 10 or 12 congressmen they didn't really deserve given the population that they considered actual people. So please don't come crying to me about the North thinking they were more equal. The South wrote the book on that game.

The South chose a military solution, when they bombarded Sumter. The North fought the war that was forced upon them.

Nonsense.

And where, exactly, does that justify theft and repudiating responsibilities?

Your entire argument along these lines is based on your insane theory that once bonds are formed, they can't be dissolved. Example: your wife decides to take a walk (she's finally done with your illogical rantings). Are you going to forbid her to leave because her name is on the mortgage and you want her to hang around just to contribute towards the servicing of that dept? (try that one in court) Are you going to argue that you must reach a consensus and, since you want her to stay, then she must?

No. She's gonna take a hike, take her paycheck with her and you're going to sell the damn house or figure out a way to pay for it because, after all, you're the only one living there now.

Furthermore, is your once cherished wife now suddenly a 'thief' because she a)left, b)took her money with her, and c)no longer contributes towards a house that she no longer lives in?

Jeeze.

See above.

So, in your pie-in-the-sky world, what happens when no consensus is reached?

And from the very beginning the South always demanded, and got, additional rights for themselves.

The north has always tried to run roughshod over the South. They viewed the South as nothing more than a supply of raw materials to keep their smokestacks belching and their profits pouring in. Same as the English viewed the Colonies.

Southern leaders understood the central government leanings of the yankees and the inherent dangers of a central government on states rights and fought to prevent it from happening.

Of course, I understand that you have a problem with states rights, as well as other sections of the Constitution, particularly anything dealing with freedom of the people.

Nonsense.

Fact. The South had initiated hostilities when they chose to bombard Sumter into surrender. Having attacked the United States and started a war against them the South left itself open for the U.S. fighting back.

Your entire argument along these lines is based on your insane theory that once bonds are formed, they can't be dissolved.

In the first place they weren't dissolved. They were broken, walked out on, deserted. In the second place I have never once said that secession is not allowed. What I have disputed is the insane theory that the Constitution allows one side can walk out at will and shaft the other side. If the bonds are to be dissolved then it takes two sides to dissolve them.

Example: your wife decides to take a walk (she's finally done with your illogical rantings). Are you going to forbid her to leave because her name is on the mortgage and you want her to hang around just to contribute towards the servicing of that dept?

Your example falls apart immediately when you ask if I'm going to forbid her to leave. If we want to apply your lame analogy to the southern actions, then I don't have a say in the matter. The wife walked out. She deserted. It's not a matter of her taking her paycheck with her, it's the fact that she's leaving me with the credit card bills that she had run up. I'm not worried about selling the house because she took part of that with her, along with whatever community property she could get her hands on. And then there's the little matter of her firing a shotgun at me on the way out the door. Now, do you want to be the husband in that situation?

So, in your pie-in-the-sky world, what happens when no consensus is reached?

Why wouldn't it? There was no great hue and cry about forcing the southern states to remain. Compromise could have been reached and a settlement satisfactory to both sides could have been arrived at. But in your gloom-and-doom world the North was out to ravage the South anyway they could. Jeez.

Southern leaders understood the central government leanings of the yankees and the inherent dangers of a central government on states rights and fought to prevent it from happening.

That is such a crock of manure, especially in light of the actions of the Davis administration. The South owned the federal government for most of our existence prior to 1860. Presidents, House and Senate leaders, judges, cabinet members, government employees, the South had had a disproportionate level of influence over all of them. If the federal government had become dangerously centralized during that time it was Southern politicians who did it.

Of course, I understand that you have a problem with states rights, as well as other sections of the Constitution, particularly anything dealing with freedom of the people.

More nonsense. I'm a big believer in states rights, always have been. It is the Southron concept of "State's Rights for me, but not for thee" that I object to. Your idea that only Southern states had rights and the Northern states could be trampled on merely by announcing that you were leaving is what I find so amusing.

In the first place they weren't dissolved. They were broken, walked out on, deserted.

Biased semantics.

Your example falls apart immediately when you ask if I'm going to forbid her to leave.

Wrong. That is the crux of the matter. You can't forbid her to leave.

And then there's the little matter of her firing a shotgun at me on the way out the door.

She fired the shotgun when you insisted on dumping some of your junk off on her new doorstep.

If the federal government had become dangerously centralized during that time it was Southern politicians who did it.

Cracker, please.! You know, I know and everybody else knows that the government began the road towards irreversible centralization at Appomattox.

Your idea that only Southern states had rights and the Northern states could be trampled on merely by announcing that you were leaving is what I find so amusing.

What a crock. First of all, I'm assuming that you're ingesting large quantities of cheese as you post this gruel.

Second, Southern states had the right to leave and northern states had the right to protest.

Biased semantics.

Completely true.

Wrong. That is the crux of the matter. You can't forbid her to leave.

I wasn't asked. And that still doesn't give her the right to take what she wants and leave the obligations without compensation.

You know, I know and everybody else knows that the government began the road towards irreversible centralization at Appomattox.

If that is indeed true then how can you use it as an excuse for the rebellion? Clairvoyance?

What a crock. First of all, I'm assuming that you're ingesting large quantities of cheese as you post this gruel.

Nonsense. It's what you've been saying all along. States can leave and the remaining states have no rights or say in the matter. They can take what they want and the remaining states have no right to compensation. They can repudiate debt and the remaining states have no protections, just the obligation to pick up what the seceding state left behind. The remaining states are nothing. They have no protections, no rights, no say in the matter. So sayeth you.

Second, Southern states had the right to leave and northern states had the right to protest.

So you contradict yourself when you said you didn't think both sides had rights. Regardless, the Southern states did not have the right to leave unilaterally. The Supreme Court decided that in 1869.

There is no Constitutional right to rebellion since rebellion is, by definition, an illegal action.

Rebellion was not mentioned in the Constitution prior to the 14th Amendment, which was added after the war.

Rebellion is only illegal if the rebels loose.

But, if you want definitions:

rebellion - organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another

secession - the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity. Typically there is a strong issue difference that drives the withdrawal.

If you choose to accept the above definitions, you also have to accept that the Southern states did not rebel. Rebellion and insurrection were/are terms used then and now to justify the illegal invasion of a neighboring country by the United States of America in 1861 for imperialistic purposes.

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.