Has the time come for a revived CSA?

[David Floyd]

I just looked it up, and you're right, of course.

For anyone interested, this website provides a nice visual representation of the world's language families:

http://www.ship.edu/~psych/languagefamilies.html

[Saras]

Let's see where a CSA vs. Union thread can randomwalk itself into:

http://mercury.ccil.org/~cowan/essential.html

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
Without question. State governments are far more accountable to the will of the people.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


Bullshit. States dont have the right to infringe on the rights of others, or to coerce them into working for free. And btw, your fearless leaders dont believe in states rights either: they just play any fiddle to keep more power to themselves. Take John Ashcroft, a true American patriot. While he was governor, he was pro states rights. Now that hes attorney general, hes trying to prosecute medical weed users in California, when the people of california have ratified the use of it. Smooth move Asscroft.

And btw, slavery wasnt legal, it just wasnt illegal. Maybe people forgot to read the constitution since it states that all men are created equal. That was a real bugger to plantation owners, and the southern business class. So to get around it, the southern states said that slaves arnt people, they are property. But then to get more representation in congress, they counted each slave as 3/5th of a person. What a sham.

Lawrence, of course slavery was made legal in the Constitution by any number of provisions including a provision for the remand of escaped slaves that Northern States were ignoring. The bit about "all men are created equal" is not in the constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence.

But your point about weed is well taken. I think that the Feds are really trampling on States Rights to the extent they declare illegal that which the states declare legal in the area of traditional police powers. This draws into constitutional question Federal Drug laws that deal in more than just interstate transportation of illegal drugs.

But it is Ashcroft's duty to enforce the laws of the United States. It is the courts who have to say that the laws or unconstitution. This has nothing to do with Aschroft's personal views on States Rights.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
If that flag offends you, it is because you have not been taught what it really stands for. It stands for . . .

. . . treason, pure and simple. It stands for the right to committ murder because of the color of man's skin. It stands for the right to deny people to marry, because they have different colored skins. It stands for all the worst things in this country's history, distilled and boiled down in a black, oily substance which corrupts men on touch. It is the flag of evil. It is a flag of shame and dishonor and only those who would fly the swastika proudly should have no qualms about showing such an evil thing.

David Floyd,
my beliefs are not treasonous, as I don't advocate violence to change the system, though I do admit violence will be necessary to defend the new order from retogrades like you.

[David Floyd]

my beliefs are not treasonous, as I don't advocate violence to change the system, though I do admit violence will be necessary to defend the new order from retogrades like you.

I never claimed your beliefs were treasonous - I said that they were coercive in nature.

And your last sentence is silly - it's "defense" for you to fight me, when I'm trying to protect MY property that YOU are trying to take? That's as non-sensical as a mugger complaining about getting shot when he tries to mug someone with a gun

[Saras]

I suck at threadjacking.

[David Floyd]

It's just that not that many people are interested in linguistics

[chequita guevara]

Because you tried with something boring, like Blatic languages, you fool.

[GePap]

State government is not particularly any more accounatble to the people...far less people vote in state elections or keep an eye out for what their state people do. I work for City government, and I don't see even City gov being more accountable. As for the constitution, it defends not only states, but invididuals, Since the monicker of states right was defeated, the rights of individuals have increased greatly, specially becuase the rights of states could be overcome.

BUt as i said, let those poor red states leave-then they can get a nice tax hike and we can get a nice tax cut!

[David Floyd]

GePap,

Since the monicker of states right was defeated, the rights of individuals have increased greatly, specially becuase the rights of states could be overcome.

This is actually a very positive thing.

Although I still believe that secession was and is Constitutional.

[Q Classic]

finno-ugric is sometimes put under the vast ural-altaic group.

this is a matter of debate.

sometimes korean and japanese are also stuck under the ural altaic group.

[Saras]

Yankee is essentially 18th Century English as altered by the impure thoughts of Puritans with cabin fever.

[Saras]

Germänn ist eßëntiälly Ënglisch mit ein few Tschängen und das käpitäal Lëtteren und Lötten von Dötten.

[chequita guevara]

Dr. S, I doubt Florida would go with the CSA this time, nuless the Repugs were still in power. It would probably spark a civil war in the state, and I could easily see most of Florida seceding from the Tallahassee government in that case. Florida is really two different states, Florida, and South Georgia. I live in the latter.

[David Floyd]

Of course, it wouldn't much matter - the CSA doesn't want a bunch of old people who whine about entitlements and can't seem to understand how to vote correctly anyway

[Whaleboy]

Civil wars are such fun...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Yet, incredibley, the existence of slavery in the South was not under attack.

It most definitely was. The Republicans wanted to end immediately foreign commerce in slaves, to declare territories free, to abolish Dred Scot and in the end abolish slavery in the South. How can anyone interpret the ultimate objective as anything other than the complete abolition of slavery in the US. Here is a quote from Linclon's House Diveded speach:

Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION:

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.
...
[W]e may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits....

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it?"

http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


. . . treason, pure and simple. It stands for the right to committ murder because of the color of man's skin. It stands for the right to deny people to marry, because they have different colored skins. It stands for all the worst things in this country's history, distilled and boiled down in a black, oily substance which corrupts men on touch. It is the flag of evil. It is a flag of shame and dishonor and only those who would fly the swastika proudly should have no qualms about showing such an evil thing.

Che, finally we agree on something.

[Ned]

There are two things which greatly erode States Rights that are unconstitutional in my view:

1) the commerce clause being used to justify laws that regulate conduct that is not related in any substantial degree to interstate commerce; and

2) revenue sharing with strings attached.

The latter is a form of direct taxation of states that Marshall said once was unconstitutional.

[Q Classic]

not.
quite.
true.

1. a lot of people are proud of their southern heritage.
2. the confederate flag is the only real symbol left of that southern heritage.
3. not all people who fly the confederate flag are racists.
4. unfortunately, the meaning of the confederate flag has been hijacked by racists.
5. not unlike the swastika, because of this hijacking, the flag is now forever tainted, even if those that have respect for it do not agree with those who hijacked it.


6. the japanese rising sun flag was once not offensive at all.
7. however, because of the events that transpired under it, for example, the bombing of pearl harbor, the rape of nanjing, and the occupation of korea, it has become offensive.
8. its meaning has been hijacked, meaning that even those who like the flag but deplore the actions cannot easily profess their like of the flag without having others come to the wrong conclusion.

9. the american flag stands for many things. it stands for freedom, for instance.
10. it also stands for the destruction of the native americans.
11. or the occupation of the philippines.
12. or the invasion and annexation of many mexican lands.
13. if the american flag were hijacked by extremists, its meaning would also change.


14. not all southerners hate jews.

[Ned]

Q Cubed, the pre-civilwar South stood for racist slavery; the rebellion was from the Republican Party and Lincoln who vowed to end it; the rebellion killed hundreds of thousands, all of whose deaths are the fault of the rebel states. Stars and Bars represents the rebellion and racist slavery and is despicable.

It is shameful that any Republican could defend that flag.

[Q Classic]

ned, i'm well aware of this. that said, not everybody who feels as if the confederate flag is part of their heritage is a racist, nor did their ancestors necessarily all own slaves.

what i'm saying is that to say anybody who flies that flag is a racist and equate them to nazis is to do an injustice to those confederate flagbearers.

this is not to defend all people who worship that flag. there are those who like the racist acts it stood for. but how are they any different from the white illinois nazis who march carrying the american flag?

and i'm not a republican, ned.

[Q Classic]

in any case, while that was what the republicans rebelled against, the political positions of both parties kinda reversed. like earth's magnetic poles.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
ned, i'm well aware of this. that said, not everybody who feels as if the confederate flag is part of their heritage is a racist, nor did their ancestors necessarily all own slaves.

what i'm saying is that to say anybody who flies that flag is a racist and equate them to nazis is to do an injustice to those confederate flagbearers.

this is not to defend all people who worship that flag. there are those who like the racist acts it stood for. but how are they any different from the white illinois nazis who march carrying the american flag?

and i'm not a republican, ned.

Q cubed, from your posts here, you should be a Republican.

However, I strongly disagree with you about people who fly the Stars and Bars and defend its display. They flaunt their racism.

[monkspider]

Good posts Q-cubed. I would argue that the things the CSA has stood for are not much different than what the USA has stood for. Both have stood for things that are morally wrong to one degree or another.

[Q Classic]

Q cubed, from your posts here, you should be a Republican.

does the fact that i detest bush, despise how he's handled foreign policy, have no problem with raising taxes, would like to see both more regulation of businesses coupled with more responsibility from business, and absolutely despise party politics doesn't count for too much?

However, I strongly disagree with you about people who fly the Stars and Bars and defend its display. They flaunt their racism.

i know of plenty of people who feel the stars and bars reflects their heritage; they feel that the sculpture of robert e. lee that graces stone mountain speaks of his honor in battle and not so much some of the things his battle was defending; who have no problem with other races, and let their relatives marry them; who are flat out not racist--
who fly that flag because their great great great great great great great great great granddaddy was one of the first settlers who came over on one of those british boats.

therefore, i have to come to the conclusion that no matter what the flag means to the general public (that of racism), even if that meaning wasn't quite the original meaning of the flag, some of those who fly it fly it for reasons that are completely non-racist.

could they have a better symbol? probably. is there one? i can't think of any.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ned
There are two things which greatly erode States Rights that are unconstitutional in my view:

1) the commerce clause being used to justify laws that regulate conduct that is not related in any substantial degree to interstate commerce; and

The problem is that interstate commerce permeates every facet of our lives. The Constitution was ratified back when people still feared monsters in the woods and most products were local (no refrigeration for food for instance). As the railways, automobiles, planes, and satelites have effectively reduced distances interstate commerce has swept into anything. Its not so much that the commerce clause has expanded as interstate commerce has radically expanded.

2) revenue sharing with strings attached.

The latter is a form of direct taxation of states that Marshall said once was unconstitutional.

Where did Marshall say that? And don't say McCulloch, because McCulloch was about states using taxes to destroy federal institutions.

Anyway, the Congress has the power to tax and the power to spend for the general welfare. If they choose to put strings on their funds that the states don't like, then the states should refuse the funds. Duh!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
in any case, while that was what the republicans rebelled against, the political positions of both parties kinda reversed. like earth's magnetic poles.

No it hasn't. The Republican Party is not for slavery, for segregation, or for States Rights in the sense that the South was for Stated Rights. The Republican party is for private enterprise, for patriotism and for a foreign policy designed to spread democracy, for family rights and for more conservative social practices, and for freedom of religion. Most Southerners today identify with the Republicans because they agree with these core issues.

You should also understand that the Republican Party was always in favor of civil rights legislation while the Democrat Party opposed it. Johnson allied with Dirksen, the Republican leader in the Senate, to get the Civil Rights act of 1964 through the Democrat filibuster lead by Al Gore's dad.

Democrats are truly fond of rewriting history to somehow paint themselves as holier than thou, when in truth, the history of that party has largely been despicable.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

Q cubed, from your posts here, you should be a Republican.

does the fact that i detest bush, despise how he's handled foreign policy, have no problem with raising taxes, would like to see both more regulation of businesses coupled with more responsibility from business, and absolutely despise party politics doesn't count for too much?

Well, vote for John McCain then -- or Colin Powell if he runs.