Is Confederate flag a symbol of hate?

America didnt commit genocide against the native americans?

we didnt enslave millions of africans? sure we did, and we have a moral obligation to fix that which we broke.

we have NO right to travel thousands of miles to create a white nation-state.

go to europe where whites are native, to do such a thing.

whites here, are the foreigners.

 

This country belongs to ALL of its citizens.

black, white, Jew, Christian, male, female, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist.

most Americans support this. We have ALL fought and died for this country, and we all deserve and have earned citizenship by birth or by deeds.


if white racists try once again to carve out a piece of this nation for a white supremacist state, they will be destroyed, again. But I say let them have alaska or maine, just to be nice.

but then ALL white supremacists must move there, and leave the rest of the country for REAL Americans

 

So the American flag is a flag of genocide? Does that make it a symbol of hate?

 

our current flag dates to 1958.

we stopped committing genocide long before then

 

So earlier American flags are flags of genocide?

 

definitely especially during the 19th century

 

Sorry if a 'succeed' slipped into the last post. Mostly I believe I used 'secede' or its derivations. I will only note the following.

I am aware of the Deceleration of Independence which you are using as your primary legal reference for the implied the Right of Secession. I even conceded that an argument can be made that the Right exists. You however failed to my three primary points in my reply;

1) The wording of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution pertaining to the powers of the State and signed by all founding members of the Republic is not definitive in its wording and a legal argument can be made in support of the Federalist Cause. Furthermore all States having consented to the Constitution upon becoming members of the Republic were bound to adhere to the mechanisms provided in that document when seeking relief - at least initially.

2) The Supreme Court had never issued and guidance on this question which is one that clearly falls within its remit. It also had the right to impose conditions and limitations on the process should it choose to do so. Again what if any limitations there might have been is unknown, history took a different course.

3) Even allowing for a peaceful/negotiated secession the South was legally obliged to put in place protections for the Rights of any US Citizen who would not by default be citizens of the Confederacy post secession since they had those rights prior to this act. This they did not do. As enacted the Secession deprived those citizens of certain rights. Likewise other pressing financial and administrative matters that would have indirectly impinged upon the rights of Northerners and Southerners alike were not dealt with (I listed some of these potential issues.)

 

Oh, and you also have the whole kicking the can down the road argument re; slavery. A peaceful secession leaves slavery as an institution intact in the South - at least for a couple of decades until it becomes economically unsustainable. What happens then? Its OK to argue the South had the lawful right to secede but if someone does so then they also have to address the most likely/important consequences. In this instance, like all others actions have consequences.

 

If the South had been allowed to secede slavery would have existed probably through the 1920s.

And segregation would have ended maybe a decade or two ago.

Thank God the brave Republican administration of Abraham Lincoln put an end to this evil

 

So for you, the American flag, depending on the number of stars, is a symbol of hate. So do you support banning it?

 

Err... do I really have to point out that (absent a time machine) its all to late. What your referring to are events that occurred in the past. What then do you suggest? That all the Western nations in your list immediately dissolve themselves and all European citizens of those nations return to Europe? (I presume all other non indigenous citizens would have to leave as well?) Careful what you wish for though - because if you say yes then by default Europe has exactly the same right to demand the exit of non-Europeans. (Isn't that racist BTW?)

Point is you really, really, REALLY need to read up on history, and I don't mean European History. Go away and read about the histories of all the great continents prior to the arrival of Europeans. With the exception of Australia (and even there there is evidence of tribal warfare they ALL saw tribe fight and conquer other tribes, city states conquer and enslave other city states and empires rise and fall.

The difference between the rise of the modern West and other civilizations of earlier times is purely one of scale not type. Slavery in some form or other has in the past been an almost universal institution since the birth of history. So were war crimes and massacres, racial and religious discrimination and oppression - by all races. No-one, no-where is untouched or unmarked by these acts. European or not we are all descended at one point or other from both the oppressor and the oppressed. To argue otherwise means putting someone some where up on a pedestal and 'saying 'look these people are better than everyone else'. If really you believe that come up with some nominations but do your research first.

 

The current flag existed long after we were committing genocide and slavery. We already had begun the process of desegregation and ending racist discrimination in this country

 

No matter how many times you try and filibuster, you will not be able to alter facts nor history. Nobody is denying that whites enslaved Africans, but NOT BEFORE THE BLACKS SOLD THEIR BRETHREN INTO SLAVERY! That is a convenient FACT you leave out every single, solitary time. Why is that? Will your filibustering not survive critical inquiry?

Virtually every country on the globe has enslaved people and held other humans at some point. Do you understand that or do we need to give a chronology of history? Now, let me see, if we have a moral obligation to fix what was broken how about the blacks that sold their brethren into slavery? Do they not have some ownership in an enterprise they profited off financially? AND how about the owners of the slave ships? Suppose that their money was handed down over generations and we can now identify former slave owners families and the money they have grown into modern empires. Should THOSE people be held accountable? Tell you what, whatever you claim whites owe blacks let us "pay" them and them make the blacks pay for the people they held in bondage. We can deduct the amount the blacks should receive from what they owe and call it a day.

Blacks CLAIM they were the Egyptians. They held my ancestors in bondage for over 400 years. So what is past is past and what is moral is moral. Do the blacks owe the descendants of people THEY held in slavery?

In what book, in what culture and what law says that an invading force cannot travel thousands of miles to take over another country? You keep rehashing the same bogus argument. How is filibustering changing the bottom line? You need some new material.

 

What??? If there was a point to be made there, you missed the mark by a country mile.

 

It's really difficult to discuss law on people with no legal experience. ALL of your objections were asked and answered. America was founded on Anglo Saxon laws and the principle of stare decisis (Latin for let the decision stand).

1 & 2) You've admitted that the Declaration of Independence was a separation document. I've proven that separation is a synonym for secession. We fought a war over that principle. So, there was NOTHING for a court to decide. If, there were no Right to secede, then the colonists had NO basis for the War of Independence and had NO authority to ratify the United States Constitution. THAT is one reason that the United States Supreme Court never took up that issue.

3) I have no idea what that paragraph even means. Slaves had no standing in this country prior to the War of Independence and the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.

IF we presume that the Constitution is in force and was in force on the day the War of Northern Aggression began, blacks cannot be citizens. Notice I said, IF.

 

I thought Point 3 clear enough. It related to issues like property. Were you a resident of say California with property holdings or investments in Florida and that State chose to secede - does Florida have the right to arbitrarily seize that property because you are not a 'citizen' of that new political entity? Baring in mind you had such property rights previously.

My point was the Supreme Court assuming it acknowledged the right to secede would probably have placed some limitations or protections in place. Likewise issues relating to debt. Does Florida for instance have the 'right' to walk away from what would previously have been its share of the US deficit and start afresh with no outstanding obligations? And of course the same issues arise regarding assets held by 'citizens' of 'Florida in other States. In this example your rights are violated arbitrarily unless the Court sets out a mechanisms that allows secession while also putting in place protections for you and others in the position I just described.

And my whole point is that via the Supreme Court there was a way for the South to seek relief. They chose force of arms instead without first seeking what if any relief may have been available via an institution set up for exactly that purpose under Article iii of the Constitution. A constitution they had sighed up to! In the case of the British no such legal option was available, but for the Confederate States it did.

And if you take our opinion literally any person, or region can declare themselves 'sovereign' at any time by the mere issuing of a 'declaration of independence' and taking up of arms to defend that independence if necessary. After which point no undertaking given by them previously, no legal contract entered into with citizens of their former nation is valid. How exactly is society supposed to function under that kind of legal regime? I must remember to go down to the bank and declare myself 'sovereign'.

For the rest you still didn't address the basic fact that the legal issues around secession have never been argued before the Supreme Court (at least prior to the war). There is no definitive position on the matter in that sense. You have a legal opinion on the matter, fine. Do you seriously believe there isn't a single lawyer in the US who couldn't argue the contrary position?

 

true, but now they can and the idea of limiting citizenship based on race is some evil bullshit.

especially in a colonial nation founded by colonists, like the USA

the USA belongs to ALL of its people, but Im willing to give Maine to White supremacists.

take it or leave it.

 

Lawyers litigate even when they don't have a case. But, it is well known in law that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional act. The South had no duty to forfeit their Rights and we have a Second Amendment for a purpose. Again, here is your answer regarding the South's duty to the law:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

Your evaluation of the law and understanding is NOT the way the law was. I can give you an example. IN MY LIFETIME, it used to be in Georgia, a citizen could use deadly force to repel an unlawful arrest. All of the issues you are bringing up could have been litigated in court without a war. They sound more like pretexts to allow a government to commit an illegal act and then deal with it later. Problem there is, the old legal maxim is silence is consent. The South did not consent to an illegal act. If you ever find yourself in a predicament where somebody is trying to break the law to take what is yours or do something illegal to you, then you might want to reconsider your position.

 

Since the actions of the government were illegal, the result is that their laws are ultra vires null and void. They might be on the books and the government may try to enforce them. But, all it's been is chaos and divisiveness. The nonwhites and their proselytes believe they are going to punish the whites and some are committing acts of genocide over this.

THAT is why my own view is irrelevant. Blacks cannot be citizens; they refuse to assimilate and they will NEVER consent to a white majority putting laws they don't like into place. The whites are being forced to choose between capitulation / slavery / genocide OR fighting back. Somebody is going to be the majority race; somebody's ideology is going to reign supreme. The notion of a one race, ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, one religion society is what is wrong and immoral. The ONLY thing that makes race based citizenship "evil" is because it's being done by white people - people you hate. The proof of that is in your own home... MADE IN CHINA, MADE IN JAPAN, MADE IN KOREA... all "racist" countries by your own standards. And yet, most of the junk in your house carries one of those labels. By financially supporting it, does that make YOU an evil person?

 

What's the minimum number of stars you will accept on a flag before it becomes a symbol of hate?

 

That explains a lot. I agree. Your openly racist view is irrelevant. That explains a lot about why you thought that simply acknowledging basic historical facts somehow required a "hatred" of white people. Complete nonsense. Ta ta.

 

It isn't about the number of stars. The Confederacy was a short-lived insurrection founded SPECIFICALLY, in their own words, to further slavery and white supremacy. That was their "corner stone." It was what they, by their own account, stood for, first and foremost. The same can't be said about the United States. It is about an honest view of history, not the "number of stars."

 

It may come as a shock to you, but I've never been on the MAGA bandwagon. I'm just making an honest observation.

 

As this thread pushes its way toward the 700 post mark, it has ran its course. The left, unable to change peoples minds, has sunk to levels of dishonesty and backhanded slaps, the likes of which are reprehensible by any standards. When the left has to accuse me of racism in the vain effort to hide their own racist actions, this whole thread becomes a joke.

I'm not deterred by allegations about racism by people that buy products and use services made in racist countries using slave labor. If those people want to see a racist, they should look into a mirror. I'm not pretending to wear a halo; I'm simply admitting that I do what the left does. However, on a lot of products, I will pay more for something made in the USA especially on high dollar items. It's not like it's a religion because I've shopped at Wallyworld and have hired people to do odd jobs where I did not ask for a pee test, hair sample, blood sample, criminal background check, credit check and ask for their birth certificate, driver's license, occupation license, and MVR record before they painted a deck or fixed a door around the house. Still, I do try to support products made in the USA.

What we learned from this thread is the Confederate flag was not really the political flag of the Confederacy and is what those who fly it make it. It is also what the left wants it to be in order to justify their war against white people. The left wants to censor the whites, erase their history, and force us to parrot their viewpoints lest we be called racist. For me, it isn't working any more. The word "racist" has lost its punch as those who over-use it expose themselves to be what they claim others are. I believe you call that a deflection. I was not born in the south. But I grew up near Stone Mountain (within 15 or miles of it). For those unfamiliar with that place, it was where the KKK was rebirthed in the 1920s. Where I grew up, everybody owned some version of the rebel flag. It was a part of our state flag. So, here I am in the heart of the south, the stronghold of the KKK and I was at least 16 years old before I ever heard anyone associate the flag with race. The Klan flew the flag, but I was really inattentive, as were most other people, as they flew the American flag as well. Those making a big deal out of it simply want a fight.

I'm offended by the fact that Muslims attacked the World Trade Center, but there are Muslims all over our neighborhood. They wear their garb and the worst you hear is someone referring to them as *******s. Nobody tries to pretend that they care about the symbolism of Islamic people to the point where they want to censor them and dishonor their customs and heritage. We have Christians that abhor homosexuality, but would never complain when their neighbor displays a rainbow flag in their yard. It's basically live and let live. The left can continue to filibuster, lie, misrepresent, and deflect until Hades turns into a block of ice. They can presume to tell me what I think when they don't have the courage to respect what is being said to them. But, their actions speak louder than words. If they would treat me as they have and lie about me, make false assumptions, and misrepresent all I've posted, then they would do it to each other. The rebel flag is not a symbol of hate. It's a flag and if it is just about retaining the culture we were brought up with, then that is what it means to that individual. If you want to be offended, then that is your Right. If you choose to be an enemy to someone over their customs and heritage, you are well within your Rights. You have a Right to believe whatever you like - until you infringe on their First Amendment Rights. What you're calling the Confederate flag (the rebel flag) is not a symbol of hate. Like it or don't. Reject the truth and use that as a basis to hate people is not a wise move - especially when you are threatening those people as I have been during the course of this thread. You don't need the rebel flag between you and a white person to justify your hatred. If you hate them, any pretext will do. But, let's face it. You don't need a pretext and the hatred of whites by liberals is black supremacy on steroids. So, let's get back to the liberals and their filibustering and making the same discredited and repetitive arguments.

 

It would behoove you to follow the train of back and forth that lead to me asking that question. Context, in this case, is important. We weren't even talking about the Confederacy, we were talking about the United States.