The Confederate Flag Thread

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:10 pm

noxiousdog wrote:
El Guapo wrote: Doesn't that apply equally to the secessionists?
Of course.

My underlying point is that examples of wars of independence are generally irrelevant to the legality of an attempt for a region to secede from a nation in any particular case.
I'm pretty sure legality goes out the window once armies are involved.

Yes, when you're using the might makes right argument, it puts you on awfully shaky ground.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:14 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
noxiousdog wrote: The European Union will exist just fine without Greece. The Britian existed just fine without Canada, Austrailia, and the United States. The Russian Federation seems ok without however many places seceeded from there.
None of these really work.

The EU is an economic union, not a nation.

Australia and the US were British colonies, not home territory. Canada is some kind of constitutional parliamentary monarchy under the Queen of England. And the sun does now set daily on the British Empire.

The Russian Federation is a fragment of the former Soviet Union and is trying desperately to regain lost Soviet republics. But technically none of them seceded from the Russian Federation. They seceded from the Soviet Union and led to its dissolution. So...not OK.
Split hairs all you want. There are plenty of examples of provinces, regions, ducheys, or states removing themselves from a central authority. The US was perfectly happy to accept the rogue nation Texas after all.
None of those work at all. How is that splitting hairs?

El Guapo wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
El Guapo wrote: Doesn't that apply equally to the secessionists?
Of course.

My underlying point is that examples of wars of independence are generally irrelevant to the legality of an attempt for a region to secede from a nation in any particular case.
I'm pretty sure legality goes out the window once armies are involved.
Yes, when you're using the might makes right argument, it puts you on awfully shaky ground.

Something like that

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:19 pm

El Guapo wrote:Yes, when you're using the might makes right argument, it puts you on awfully shaky ground.

2500 or more year after The Republic haven't we still failed to address to prove Might Makes Right as invalid just as much as Plato failed? My God, Plato spend 300 damned pages talking about fires and shadows and lydian sheep herders with rings to dance around without answer an Thasymacus.

That or my memory has finally completely given away fantasy. Did I miss Plato's rebuttal?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:24 pm

PLW wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote: We also know that every citizen in South Carolina is a United States citizen (in 1861). By what right does the state legislature in South Carolina have to strip any person living in South Carolina of their US citizenship?

I like this point a lot. Nice job.

Ok so, having said that I do not think (you know, as an expert in constitutional law) that states had a legal right to unilaterally secede in 1861, it was at least debatable at the time. It was a subject of ongoing debate between 1787 and Reconstruction as to whether primary sovereignty resided at the state or federal level. The state-centric view (obviously adopted by the Confederacy) was that the primary sovereign of a South Carolina citizen was the South Carolina legislature (and governor, courts, etc.), which had ceded some (but not all) of that sovereignty to the federal government when it signed onto the Constitution.

Under this view, the authority of the South Carolina legislature to remove its residence from U.S. sovereignty would come from that legislatures duly elected authority as the government of South Carolina. Similarly, the counter-argument to RM9's citation to the supremacy clause is that it provides that federal law trumps state law where they conflict, until such time as a state secedes and reclaims its full sovereignty.

Again, I don't agree, but it was at least debatable at the time.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:45 pm

Thank you for that El Guapo, and I certainly understand your point of view as well.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:04 pm

El Guapo wrote:it was at least debatable at the time.

It was debatable at the time, in that the people that wanted to secede, debated that they had the right to secede, and people that didn't want them to secede debated that they didn't have the right to secede.

AoC wrote: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.

What kind of union? Maybe perpetual meant something different to them? Either way, it certainly didn't mean perpetual, because it lasted all of 8 years (unless you accept the argument that the US Constitution simply improved and maintained the perpetual union agreed to in the Articles).

As I noted earlier, there is an obvious difference (to me) between the two preambles:

Articles of Confederation wrote:perpetual Union between the states of...

US Constitution wrote:We, the people of the United States

The actors in the AoC were the States. The actors in the Constitution were the People.

The respective supremacy clauses:

Articles of Confederation wrote: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.

US Constitution wrote:This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution;

I would argue that the South Carolina state legislature lacked the right to secede based on the obvious wording of Article VI, Section 3. The members of the South Carolina state legislature were bound by oath or affirmation to support THAT constitution, no?

Also, why are we arguing about this anyway? Because shitty people in the South thought that people in the North telling them that they couldn't own other human beings was "tyranny"?

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:41 pm

Interesting article on "southern heritage."

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:27 pm

dbt1949 wrote:Interesting article on "southern heritage."

Good read, and a perspective that hadn't occurred to me but makes perfect sense.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:15 pm

Hilarious

Confederate battle flags greeted President Barack Obama as he arrived here for an overnight stay on Wednesday.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:23 pm

Southern pride, man. Nevermind that Oklahoma isn't in the South, or even existed during the Civil War.

Really, though, this is shameful. Even if you love that flag, flying it to greet the first black President is completely classless. Even most ardent anti-semite know better than to fly a Nazi flag when the Israeli PM comes to town, probably because they'd feel adequately shamed and stigmatized for doing so. It says something about the broader culture that these dipshits probably were more encouraged than dissuaded from others around them to greet the president with the battle flag. If I were being generous, I'd say that these yokels are doing so simply because in their ignorance they want to give a big "F U" to Obama, and don't really grasp the connotation of racial violence and white supremacy. Still, it's tacky and crass and they are backwards numbskulls.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:28 pm

My guess is that they felt especially good about themselves for being able to fly it in front of a black POTUS. It also strikes me as incredibly stupid that they're most likely protesting against something that hasn't happened...namely, the banning of the flag. As evidenced by the fact that...well...you know...they were allowed to protest using those same flags?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:41 pm

See, it makes me feel the opposite.

That even racist nutjobs can protest and do crass things in public (even in the presence of our leader) and not devolve into throwing rocks, riots, or people being thrown in jail. There are few places on earth you could do something so offensive and not get much beyond people shaking their heads in response.

Peaceful free speech is a beautiful thing, we take it far too much for granted.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:55 pm

It's great that they can do it. It's shitty that that's their message.

Waving a rebel flag at the POTUS is like stomping and shitting on a U.S. flag. It's legal to do it, and the message is loud, but it also makes you the nastiest kind of fool.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:57 pm

Holman wrote:It's great that they can do it. It's shitty that that's their message.

Waving a rebel flag at the POTUS is like stomping and shitting on a U.S. flag. It's legal to do it, and the message is loud, but it also makes you the nastiest kind of fool.

Agree, the message is asinine shit, but that it can be done peacefully is heartwarming.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:59 pm

Rip wrote:See, it makes me feel the opposite.

That even racist nutjobs can protest and do crass things in public (even in the presence of our leader) and not devolve into throwing rocks, riots, or people being thrown in jail. There are few places on earth you could do something so offensive and not get much beyond people shaking their heads in response.

Peaceful free speech is a beautiful thing, we take it far too much for granted.

So you're down with Westboro protests at military funerals then?

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:05 pm

As a literal card-carrying non-American (I have an actual card in my wallet that certifies my citizenship, just in case The Man ever decides to try to ship me off to the land of my ill-timed birth), I am thankful that The Oatmeal has taken the time to explain the meaning of the Confederate (battle) Flag, among other American icons.

Well played, Mr The Oatmeal, well played indeed.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:09 pm

raydude wrote:
Rip wrote:See, it makes me feel the opposite.

That even racist nutjobs can protest and do crass things in public (even in the presence of our leader) and not devolve into throwing rocks, riots, or people being thrown in jail. There are few places on earth you could do something so offensive and not get much beyond people shaking their heads in response.

Peaceful free speech is a beautiful thing, we take it far too much for granted.
So you're down with Westboro protests at military funerals then?

Do I like them, of course not.

Do I like that even doing that doesn't get them stoned? Yep.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:55 pm

Rip wrote:
Holman wrote:It's great that they can do it. It's shitty that that's their message.

Waving a rebel flag at the POTUS is like stomping and shitting on a U.S. flag. It's legal to do it, and the message is loud, but it also makes you the nastiest kind of fool.
Agree, the message is asinine shit, but that it can be done peacefully is heartwarming.

You can paint a swastika on your car and drive through a Jewish neighborhood, too. But I wouldn't call it heartwarming.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:59 pm

hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
Holman wrote:It's great that they can do it. It's shitty that that's their message.

Waving a rebel flag at the POTUS is like stomping and shitting on a U.S. flag. It's legal to do it, and the message is loud, but it also makes you the nastiest kind of fool.
Agree, the message is asinine shit, but that it can be done peacefully is heartwarming.
You can paint a swastika on your car and drive through a Jewish neighborhood, too. But I wouldn't call it heartwarming.

Wow, like that show the David Dukes of Hazzard or something.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:01 pm

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:02 pm

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:04 pm

Those Duke boys didn't mean no harm!

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:13 pm

On the David Dukes of Hazzard, you end up cheering for Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane...

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Thu Jul 16, 2015 4:32 pm

I wonder what Boss Hong Horenstein will do to the boys this week?

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:09 pm

Given that a huge part of the GOP election strategy for the next decade appears to be leveraging the Supreme Court decision regarding the VRA throughout the South, I don't think this will go far, but here it is:

Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), the third-ranking House Democrat, said Thursday that Democratic leaders will drop their push to attach flag-related amendments to appropriations bills, freeing Republicans to pursue their spending agenda, if GOP leaders will agree to consider an update to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a central part of which was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013.

"I'm here to say to you that the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the full Democratic Caucus are willing to sit down with the Speaker and work out a way for us to allow the proper display and utilization of ... the flag in certain instances if he would only sit down with us and work out an appropriate addressing of the amendments to the Voting Rights Act," Clyburn said during a press briefing in the Capitol.

"We believe that there's a proper place for all of us to honor our heritage, and nothing is more of a heritage to African-Americans than the right to vote."

The Democrats have been pushing a VRA update unsuccessfully for two years. With their new strategy, they're hoping the high-profile controversy surrounding the Confederate flag — which has only deepened since last month's racially charged killing of nine parishioners at an historic black church in Charleston, S.C. — will give them leverage in that fight.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:34 am

$iljanus wrote:Wow, like that show the David Dukes of Hazzard or something.

..they get by the only way they know how, that's just quite a bit more than the halakha will allow.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:07 pm

Surprise, surprise! Why is it I tend to think that this guy is representative of a large part of the flag's vocal supporters?

According to court records, a judge issued an arrest warrant for West after he failed to show up last week for a court hearing on the probation violation charge. West, whose rap sheet is brimming with weapons-related charges, is serving two years probation for a misdemeanor conviction earlier this year for “Assault Pointing Gun.”..

...West lives in Rocky Mount, a predominantly African-American city about 60 miles east of Raleigh. As seen below, West’s home is a neighborhood eyesore, a walled-in property ringed by barbed wire and surrounded by an array of Confederate flags (which have grown in number since last month’s racially motivated killings at Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church).

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:50 pm

Pyperkub wrote:Surprise, surprise! Why is it I tend to think that this guy is representative of a large part of the flag's vocal supporters?

According to court records, a judge issued an arrest warrant for West after he failed to show up last week for a court hearing on the probation violation charge. West, whose rap sheet is brimming with weapons-related charges, is serving two years probation for a misdemeanor conviction earlier this year for “Assault Pointing Gun.”..

...West lives in Rocky Mount, a predominantly African-American city about 60 miles east of Raleigh. As seen below, West’s home is a neighborhood eyesore, a walled-in property ringed by barbed wire and surrounded by an array of Confederate flags (which have grown in number since last month’s racially motivated killings at Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church).

If being a fanboi is a crime, aren't we all guilty of something?

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:39 pm

Yeah, but this is gamer gate level of crazy

RuperT · Post by **RuperT** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:05 pm

I don't think you can fly but 3 flags of any type before you're a weirdo anyway.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:12 pm

RuperT wrote:I don't think you can fly but 3 flags of any type before you're a weirdo anyway.

Unless you're Texas, of course.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Jul 20, 2015 8:15 am

#NoFlaggingChallenge #DarwinAward

The criminal ‘trend’ about stealing Confederate flags that isn't really happening

It's been widely reported that the "No Flagging Challenge" - in which Confederate flags are stolen - is spreading across the US. But in fact only a handful of videos showing such incidents have been posted online. Criminal? Very likely. Foolish? Yes, indeed. Political? Most definitely. The latest "challenge" to supposedly go viral involves stealing the controversial Confederate battle flag off of homes or vehicles, videotaping the act and posting it online. It's been dubbed the "No Flagging Challenge" and social media and international news outlets were quick to pick up on the story. Videos posted online seem to show African-Americans stealing the flag. "Vigilantes play DARE with the confederate flag," one newspaper headline declared, while another called the stunt "quick, direct, illegal, and likely to provoke rage."

Seems like a good way to get yourself shot.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:06 am

Mocking tuba (actually looks like a sousaphone, i.e. LOUUUUUD) march alongside Confederate protestors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs4P1kKK-5k

...funny, but made funnier when I realized it was taken from this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0aIqx1McVI

And then made less funny with the spoken comments off screen....could have been perfect!

I will say the Ride of the Valkryies in the middle was a nice touch!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:36 pm

There's no small amount of idiocy in constantly referring to yourself as a patriot while sitting in front of a confederate flag.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:26 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote:Mocking tuba (actually looks like a sousaphone, i.e. LOUUUUUD) march alongside Confederate protestors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs4P1kKK-5kP

If I was independently wealthy -- like money to burn on anything wealth -- I would hire this guy to fly around the United States and follow various hate groups around during parades. KKK. Westboro Church -- according to the SPLC Hate Map there are 40 active hate groups alone in the State of NJ alone. That's mind boggling, but this is awesome.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:31 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote:Mocking tuba (actually looks like a sousaphone, i.e. LOUUUUUD) march alongside Confederate protestors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs4P1kKK-5kP
If I was independently wealthy -- like money to burn on anything wealth -- I would hire this guy to fly around the United States and follow various hate groups around during parades. KKK. Westboro Church -- according to the SPLC Hate Map there are 40 active hate groups alone in the State of NJ alone. That's mind boggling, but this is awesome.

No need to fly anyone around...just pay a kid in the local marching band (high school or uni) $50 and done! Much more cost effective.

Hell, hire the whole tuba section with the money you saved on the plane tickets.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:00 pm

How I Infiltrated a White Pride Facebook Group and Turned It into 'LGBT Southerners for Michelle Obama'

God damn, this is the funniest thing that I've read in a long time.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:20 pm

I'm halfway through that Vice piece and I'm already laughing so hard I'm crying. The part about taunting "Chris" by telling everyone he's a northerner was what hit me the hardest.

edit: nope, this is funnier.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:48 pm

Best part was "I heard you ordered a Strawberry Coolatta at Dunkin Donuts the other day and liked it!"
Response: 'Say that to my face! I would knock you out with one hit" (paraphrased)

I will say I am not crazy about his lumping "Southerners" into one big racist hate bucket, though. Fuck you, dude (even though you did make me laugh).

RuperT · Post by **RuperT** » Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:54 pm

Despicable.