Who flies this flag?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby boney fingers » Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:30 pm

wanapasaki wrote::huh:
boney fingers wrote:When the south wrote its constitution, they based it on the US constitution; what were the major differences?


The southern constitution was based on the US constitution with a few changes the most of which dealt with slavery. There were some legitimate state rights issues added but they also took the rights of states to abolish slavery away . IMO for the common southerner, the war was sold on states rights(most southerners were poor non slave owners) but the politicians were very interested in preserving their power base which was the wealthy slave owners. The war started over succession, so technically it did not start over slavery; but I believe if you look honestly into history you will find succession would not have happened had it not been for the slave issue. Lincoln did not start the war, so to say the war was to free the slaves is wrong, but also a very popular myth in the north. All that being said, there were plenty of brave and honorable men who fought for the south that were not interested in the preservation of slavery and if their descendants want to fly the flag, I have no problem with that. At some point though, we have to all come to the realization that all our forefathers were not perfect and move on.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm


Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:16 pm

ScaupHunter wrote: The war was started by the southern states at Ft. Sumpter.


This is only true if you believe that a state has no right to secede. As soon as you show me where any of our founding documents state that, I'll agree with your statement. But as it was, South Carolina seceded, they told them to get out of what was no longer US govt property, but they didn't. Instead, they sent reinforcements.




ScaupHunter wrote: The North not only did not want a war, they got battered pretty badly for quite a while.


Sure they did. Otherwise, they wouldn't have invaded the South. Easy-peasy.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:33 pm

assateague wrote:This is only true if you believe that a state has no right to secede. As soon as you show me where any of our founding documents state that, I'll agree with your statement.
You presume that the burden of proof resides with the others to prove it. Why don't you prove that they have a right to secede? You show me where any of our founding documents state that, and I'll agree. :yes:

I just don't think there is a right to secede. The process should have been spelled out clearly and I actually think it is.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

I believe the common sense interpretation is that the process to unestablish the constitution is via the same process it was established and not via one state saying "I'm out."

What is your basis in the Constitution for the process you suggest?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:06 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: You presume that the burden of proof resides with the others to prove it. Why don't you prove that they have a right to secede? You show me where any of our founding documents state that, and I'll agree. :yes:

I just don't think there is a right to secede. The process should have been spelled out clearly and I actually think it is.


From what I've read, the terms of ratification for the states of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island stated that if things went sour with the Union, they reserved the right to pull out. If secession were unconstitutional they wouldn't have been allowed to enter the union with those terms intact.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:27 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: You presume that the burden of proof resides with the others to prove it. Why don't you prove that they have a right to secede? You show me where any of our founding documents state that, and I'll agree. :yes:

I just don't think there is a right to secede. The process should have been spelled out clearly and I actually think it is.


From what I've read, the terms of ratification for the states of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island stated that if things went sour with the Union, they reserved the right to pull out. If secession were unconstitutional they wouldn't have been allowed to enter the union with those terms intact.

Bingo!
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58100
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:55 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: You presume that the burden of proof resides with the others to prove it. Why don't you prove that they have a right to secede? You show me where any of our founding documents state that, and I'll agree. :yes:

I just don't think there is a right to secede. The process should have been spelled out clearly and I actually think it is.


From what I've read, the terms of ratification for the states of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island stated that if things went sour with the Union, they reserved the right to pull out. If secession were unconstitutional they wouldn't have been allowed to enter the union with those terms intact.



As was Texas, entering via treaty.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:00 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:This is only true if you believe that a state has no right to secede. As soon as you show me where any of our founding documents state that, I'll agree with your statement.
You presume that the burden of proof resides with the others to prove it. Why don't you prove that they have a right to secede? You show me where any of our founding documents state that, and I'll agree. :yes:

I just don't think there is a right to secede. The process should have been spelled out clearly and I actually think it is.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

I believe the common sense interpretation is that the process to unestablish the constitution is via the same process it was established and not via one state saying "I'm out."

What is your basis in the Constitution for the process you suggest?



Nobody was "unestablishing" the constitution by leaving, anymore than Arthur Blank was "unestablishing" Home Depot by leaving the company. That's just silly.

As for the burden of proof, because the way I explained it is the way this country works- I don't have to prove my innocence, the state must prove my guilt. But you know this, as you've stated it numerous times over numerous threads. The fact that in this case it doesn't work out for your argument is not justification for throwing it out.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby WTN10 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:02 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:It started over slavery........ the cover for getting the shooting match going was money. Southern apologists like the idea that it didn't start over slavery, because that's the issue where the south is most clearly culpable. But it doesn't wash


Clearly you're correct. Neither the North or the South were motivated primarily by money. As you say, clearly men being primarily motivated by money and profit is a preposterous proposition. No, they just hated black people and so tens of thousands of poor Southern farmers and farm workers with nary a slave to their name or much else property at that went and died to preserve their right to live in a place where richer white men could treat black people badly and make money off of the low cost labor.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14095
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby swampbilly 1980 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:29 am

Slow-

Perhaps this would've been more acceptable-

Image
Swampbilly1980- I got a feeva',..and the only cure is more Mergansers and face paint.
User avatar
swampbilly 1980
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 9104
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Gloucester,Va.

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:57 am

What is that?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby vincentpa » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:57 am

WTN10 wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:It started over slavery........ the cover for getting the shooting match going was money. Southern apologists like the idea that it didn't start over slavery, because that's the issue where the south is most clearly culpable. But it doesn't wash


Clearly you're correct. Neither the North or the South were motivated primarily by money. As you say, clearly men being primarily motivated by money and profit is a preposterous proposition. No, they just hated black people and so tens of thousands of poor Southern farmers and farm workers with nary a slave to their name or much else property at that went and died to preserve their right to live in a place where richer white men could treat black people badly and make money off of the low cost labor.



This topic brings people out of the woodwork.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7742
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby swampbilly 1980 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:30 am

clampdaddy wrote:What is that?

Apparently it's someones' silly rendition of an "African American" flag using flag color scheme of Africa.

Image
Swampbilly1980- I got a feeva',..and the only cure is more Mergansers and face paint.
User avatar
swampbilly 1980
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 9104
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Gloucester,Va.

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:31 am

clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: You presume that the burden of proof resides with the others to prove it. Why don't you prove that they have a right to secede? You show me where any of our founding documents state that, and I'll agree. :yes:

I just don't think there is a right to secede. The process should have been spelled out clearly and I actually think it is.


From what I've read, the terms of ratification for the states of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island stated that if things went sour with the Union, they reserved the right to pull out. If secession were unconstitutional they wouldn't have been allowed to enter the union with those terms intact.

So why didn't they put that clearly in the Constitution?

It should be easy for AT to find a link and prove it then.

I'm not going to look for it and prove my innocence :lol3:

Facts are not about guilt :fingerhead:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:24 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: You presume that the burden of proof resides with the others to prove it. Why don't you prove that they have a right to secede? You show me where any of our founding documents state that, and I'll agree. :yes:

I just don't think there is a right to secede. The process should have been spelled out clearly and I actually think it is.


From what I've read, the terms of ratification for the states of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island stated that if things went sour with the Union, they reserved the right to pull out. If secession were unconstitutional they wouldn't have been allowed to enter the union with those terms intact.

So why didn't they put that clearly in the Constitution?

It should be easy for AT to find a link and prove it then.

I'm not going to look for it and prove my innocence :lol3:

Facts are not about guilt :fingerhead:


Can you find anything in the constitution that forbids secession?
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:34 am

clampdaddy wrote:Can you find anything in the constitution that forbids secession?
I think the reasonable interpretation of what I posted is that you simply can't get out of the contract by saying :hi: If a state wishes to split into two, you have to have to get the permission of Congress. If two states wish to merge, it has to be approved. All of that I just don't think it is reasonable to say to leave, you just wave good by. That would not be a union. That would be a club.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby High Sierras » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:45 am

Nah...
Slow's from the Bay Area... His idea of what we should all be rallying around looks more like this:

Image

Image
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:51 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:Can you find anything in the constitution that forbids secession?
I think the reasonable interpretation of what I posted is that you simply can't get out of the contract by saying :hi: If a state wishes to split into two, you have to have to get the permission of Congress. If two states wish to merge, it has to be approved. All of that I just don't think it is reasonable to say to leave, you just wave good by. That would not be a union. That would be a club.

States can not join or split without congressional approval while they are part of the union, but if they secede then no such approval would be necessary.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:56 am

clampdaddy wrote:States can not join or split without congressional approval while they are part of the union, but if they secede then no such approval would be necessary.

So you really believe it's really just a club and not a union? You can just walk out on the contract at any time you want. There is no way that is a stable nation. It may very well be true. If it is, it should be easy to find the documents online. I just do not see it in the Constitution. As I said, it is not clear and it should have been, but I think the reasonable interpretation of the union is that it is binding and not voluntary. It's a marriage and not a friendship.

BTW, the United Clubs in America are very nice. I've been in them a couple times. Free booze, comfy seats, free food, ...
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby clampdaddy » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:06 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:States can not join or split without congressional approval while they are part of the union, but if they secede then no such approval would be necessary.

So you really believe it's really just a club and not a union? You can just walk out on the contract at any time you want. There is no way that is a stable nation. It may very well be true. If it is, it should be easy to find the documents online. I just do not see it in the Constitution. As I said, it is not clear and it should have been, but I think the reasonable interpretation of the union is that it is binding and not voluntary. It's a marriage and not a friendship.

BTW, the United Clubs in America are very nice. I've been in them a couple times. Free booze, comfy seats, free food, ...


A marriage is also a legal union but that doesn't mean it's permanent.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:07 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:Can you find anything in the constitution that forbids secession?
I think the reasonable interpretation of what I posted is that you simply can't get out of the contract by saying :hi: If a state wishes to split into two, you have to have to get the permission of Congress. If two states wish to merge, it has to be approved. All of that I just don't think it is reasonable to say to leave, you just wave good by. That would not be a union. That would be a club.



And I think that a reasonable interpretation is that they can.

That was easy.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:15 am

assateague wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:Can you find anything in the constitution that forbids secession?
I think the reasonable interpretation of what I posted is that you simply can't get out of the contract by saying :hi: If a state wishes to split into two, you have to have to get the permission of Congress. If two states wish to merge, it has to be approved. All of that I just don't think it is reasonable to say to leave, you just wave good by. That would not be a union. That would be a club.



And I think that a reasonable interpretation is that they can.

That was easy.

But you have no proof.

Since the burden of proof on an assertion does not lie with the other person, you need to prove it.

I have said that I may be wrong. You seem to not be open to that possibility. Where's the proof for that certainty? :huh:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:32 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
assateague wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:Can you find anything in the constitution that forbids secession?
I think the reasonable interpretation of what I posted is that you simply can't get out of the contract by saying :hi: If a state wishes to split into two, you have to have to get the permission of Congress. If two states wish to merge, it has to be approved. All of that I just don't think it is reasonable to say to leave, you just wave good by. That would not be a union. That would be a club.



And I think that a reasonable interpretation is that they can.

That was easy.

But you have no proof.

Since the burden of proof on an assertion does not lie with the other person, you need to prove it.

I have said that I may be wrong. You seem to not be open to that possibility. Where's the proof for that certainty? :huh:



My assertion is "it was (and is) legal to secede". My proof is "there is nothing anywhere in any founding documents which says they may not".

Your assertion is "it was (and is) illegal to secede". Your proof is "there is nothing in any founding documents which says they may".

But here's the difference.

To accuse someone of wrongdoing, you must present them with a law they broke, or a concrete standard which they violated. I (nor anyone, nor any state) must present proof that they MAY do something. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one doing the "punishing".

Do I have to PROVE that I may wear a purple t-shirt? Nope. If you claim I may not wear a purple t-shirt, then you most assuredly are the one required to show me why I may NOT wear whatever raiment I select. Do I have to PROVE that I didn't shoot my neighbor's dog, or does he have to prove that I did? We all know the answer. Do I have to PROVE that I may quit my job, or does my employer have to PROVE that I may not leave?

You're completely backwards on this, but I'm almost positive that you already know this.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:53 am

assateague wrote:Your assertion is "it was (and is) illegal to secede". Your proof is "there is nothing in any founding documents which says they may".
:fingerpt:

There is not nothing. It's just not crystal clear as it should have been, particularly if being able to secede was something important to the states as was claimed. If that is true, there should be ample documentation available. It would probably have been discussed in the federalist and/or anti-federalist papers. I am not aware of this, but if true, it would exist.

assateague wrote:To accuse someone of wrongdoing, you must present them with a law they broke, or a concrete standard which they violated. I (nor anyone, nor any state) must present proof that they MAY do something. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one doing the "punishing".
Contract law is not criminal law. This is a dispute over the interpretation of a contract. The assertion by the south was that they could leave. So I believe the burden falls upon them to prove it. I don't believe they committed a crime. This was not criminal.

However, we are having a debate about facts and the truth. I have said I can't prove it. And you can't prove it. So it is unproven.

As I said before. OK, for the sake of argument, they had the right to secede. That still didn't preclude the north from go to war with them just as we did with so many other countries. Either way the end result is the same. Being a free country, did not make you free from northern aggression. If you couldn't protect yourself, you didn't get to exist. That was the rule of the day. Just like when the Brits tried to recapture us in 1812. Had they succeeded, we would be bitching just like the losers of the Civil War still do today. And yes, we would probably see people arguing about the legality, which would be just as irrelevant.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16303
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby assateague » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:49 am

I agree that they certainly had a right to invade the South. That's never been a question in my mind. My only beef has always been in the notion that they were fighting some sort of legally justified war, and that the South was in the wrong, when the exact opposite is true.

I still maintain that members of a federation, who are the ones who had the power to create the federation in the first place, are free to leave whenever they want. Members of NATO may leave, members of the UN may leave, why not states? They are "sovereign entities", and there is no such thing as "half" sovereign. While playing the game they voluntarily signed on to play, they must play by the established rules, but when they tire of the game, they may leave and are no longer subject to the rules, since they're no longer playing.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Who flies this flag?

Postby MODuckkiller » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:04 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:States can not join or split without congressional approval while they are part of the union, but if they secede then no such approval would be necessary.

So you really believe it's really just a club and not a union? You can just walk out on the contract at any time you want. There is no way that is a stable nation....

Clamp is right. Both sides of the case can be argued and neither one would be wrong.
This is an excerpt taken from a White House affiliated website titled "We the People" which I found clearer, and more concise on the website "DecodedScience".
"The constitution is completely silent on the issue of a state leaving the union. As many legal documents do, the omission leaves both sides of the argument to say the constitution supports their point of view. Those who favor the secession of a state say that states can decide to separate because the U.S. Constitution does not expressly forbid it. Those opposed to breaking up the country argue that since the constitution does not expressly provide for a state to leave the union, a state has no legal right to secede from the United States.
Despite how horrific Obama’s re-election is to those people who are demanding their state secede from the U.S., this is not the first time states have tried to secede. Texas attempted to leave the union just prior to the Civil War. And as keen observers will note, Texas is still one of the United States of America.
"

@ Spinner- Your first mistake was assuming we're in a stable nation.
MIZ
-MODuckkiller
User avatar
MODuckkiller
hunter
 
Posts: 1609
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 am
Location: Missouri, Louisiana

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron