Confederate Flag License Plate Sparks Debate

[Feuer Frei!]

Would you buy a license plate with a Confederate flag on it? State officials are looking at possibly launching a new Texas state license plate honoring veterans of the War Between the States. Mr. Hilary Shelton, with the NAACP in Washington, D.C., said that the Civil War may not be something we want to celebrate.
“When many look at that history, we think about it in terms of secession, that is we were seceding from the Union in the southern parts of the country,” explained Shelton. “Many would view that, quite frankly, as treason, because they meant to actually destroy the existing governmental structure. But when we dig deeper, the issue becomes even more offensive to many African Americans and those that sought freedom for those of darker skin in our country.”
“When you understand the Confederate history, and what it stood for,” said Dallas resident Mark Jones, “it’s directly slapping African Americans in the face.”
In terms of the Civil War, Shelton said that the Confederate flag was actually very un-American. “It was the flag that was flown during a war to actually tear the nation apart,” Shelton explained.
“I don’t think that this will unify us,” said Carrollton resident Carolina Arreola. “Our patriotism is to the Unites States flag.”
But the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans have renewed their push for a Texas license plate that includes the rebel flag in its design.
Thomas Muhammed founded an organization to recover reparations for slavery. Still, he would not oppose the license plates. “I don’t see how a flag hurts someone, as long as the people displaying these license plates are not killing people physically who are of African descent.” Muhammed said.
Currently, nine states already allow the license plates. A statement in a recent newsletter from the Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans said, “…the Florida Division, the eleventh state, has just filed a lawsuit against the DOT there after their request was denied. I am confident their case will prevail, because legal precedents are in place. I am hopeful that the Texas DOT also realizes this as they consider our application.”
(Note: Despite the above quote, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles is actually the state agency responsible for the state license plates, NOT the Texas Department of Transportation.)
View This Poll (http://polldaddy.com/poll/5169953/)
survey software (http://polldaddy.com/features-surveys/) Shelton said that, ultimately, the issue is not about feelings over the Confederacy or those who fought in the Civil War. “The issue here is whether or not we should allow state dollars to be utilized to actually continue to advance these notions of the ‘Old Confederacy,’ and somehow or another that slavery and all those other things that were parts of that Confederacy were something worth celebrating. I think many, many of us would say the answer is absolutely ‘no.’”
However, the City of Dallas already has a large Confederate memorial and several schools named after Confederate generals.
The state board that regulates license plates has rejected Confederate flag license plates before, but the issue is set to come up again at an upcoming meeting that has not yet been scheduled.


SOURCE (http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/06/23/license-plate-featuring-confederate-flag-hot-topic-at-txdot/)

[Onkel Neal]

Oh god, I wish they would give the Confederacy a rest.

[mookiemookie]

Oh god, I wish they would give the Confederacy a rest.

Agreed. It's a relic of a stupid time and nothing to be proud of. Of all the things this state could honor, all the achievements and true heritage that has made a lasting POSITIVE impact on this world, they choose to drag out the godforsaken Confederate flag.

Just let the damn thing die and be resigned to the scrap heap of history.

[Freiwillige]

“Many would view that, quite frankly, as treason, because they meant to actually destroy the existing governmental structure."

Well history revisionists guy, most states had the legal right to break from the union (Not treason) and to this day some still do.:yep:

[mookiemookie]

Well history revisionists guy, most states had the legal right to break from the union (Not treason) and to this day some still do.:yep:

Better check your facts before calling names. Texas v. White (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html) settled the secession question once and for all and any and all secession clauses or ordinances in the various states are null. The Union is perpetual and indissoluble.

[Bakkels]

Agreed. It's a relic of a stupid time and nothing to be proud of. Of all the things this state could honor, all the achievements and true heritage that has made a lasting POSITIVE impact on this world, they choose to drag out the godforsaken Confederate flag.

Just let the damn thing die and be resigned to the scrap heap of history.

Well as a non American I'm no expert. And what Mookie said looks to make sense. But I always wondered what that flag exactly means nowadays. I mean I know it was the flag of the south in the Civil War, but what is it's meaning now? Does it just represent a general feel of rebellion? Or does it have a racial connotation too?
I'm just curious since I see this flag coming up in movies and series now and then and I always wonder what it is exactly that it stands for?

[Platapus]

What is interesting is that the flag displayed in that article is not the confederate flag.

It is either the Confederate Battle Flag or the Confederate Naval Jack. Both of which were military flags not national flags.

That's what is so funny. These people who want to recognize their heritage don't even know what the flag of the confederacy even looks like. :nope:

http://www.usflag.org/confederate.stars.and.bars.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

I would not have a problem if people wanted to display the flag of the confederacy (any version). As that would be a historical national flag from a period of our history. I do, however, have a problem with people displaying a battle flag of an illegal rebellion.

Displaying a battle flag can be considered an aggressive action.

[Onkel Neal]

Better check your facts before calling names. Texas v. White (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html) settled the secession question once and for all and any and all secession clauses or ordinances in the various states are null. The Union is perpetual and indissoluble.


I disagree. Maybe legal precedent (a flimsy and temporal pretext) says the Union is perpetual and, what that other is, now, but that could easily change. It's nuts to think that the US is a big backer of self-determination all over the world but not at home.

Majority rules! And if a state wants out of this sinking ship, that's the will of the people, who has the right to oppose?

:)


Well as a non American I'm no expert. And what Mookie said looks to make sense. But I always wondered what that flag exactly means nowadays. I mean I know it was the flag of the south in the Civil War, but what is it's meaning now? Does it just represent a general feel of rebellion? Or does it have a racial connotation too?
I'm just curious since I see this flag coming up in movies and series now and then and I always wonder what it is exactly that it stands for?

Speaking for myself, a native Southerner, I think most who fly the flag see it as a way of flipping off authority. It also represents the will and determination of the South to hold on to their way of life (which was pretty shabby, on the whole, but hey).

Illegal rebellion, ha, the US was founded on that concept, right, Jim? :)

[Bakkels]

I disagree. Maybe legal precedent (a flimsy and temporal pretext) says the Union is perpetual and, what that other is, now, but that could easily change. It's nuts to think that the US is a big backer of self-determination all over the world but not at home.

Majority rules! And if a state wants out of this sinking ship, that's the will of the people, who has the right to oppose?

:)


Speaking for myself, a native Southerner, I think most who fly the flag see it as a way of flipping off authority. It also represents the will and determination of the South to hold on to their way of life (which was pretty shabby, on the whole, but hey).

Illegal rebellion, ha, the US was founded on that concept, right, Jim? :)

Ok, thanks for the explanation on the flag.
But (forgive me for prying) this is where it gets interesting;
"Majority rules! And if a state wants out of this sinking ship, that's the will of the people, who has the right to oppose"
On the one hand, I can understand your feeling. On the other hand, Texas is part of the US and the US democracy is formed by all the 52 states. So in this case, even if the majority of Texas would rather be independant, you're overruled by democracy. Kinda ironic; democracy is relative; it still depends on who gets to vote. I take it that all states/senators wouls have to vote about this. (But please correct me if I made any mistakes here)

[Platapus]

US democracy is formed by all the 52 states.


Still 50 states, one federal district, and a small bunch of territories. :up:

Oh and about 800 military bases around the world. Can't forget about them. :yep:

[Bakkels]

My bad, sorry. Somehow I always think there's 52 :doh: (Don't underestimate me though, I play pub-quizzes on a regular basis and I know most of the US capitals ;))

[Snestorm]

Better check your facts before calling names. Texas v. White (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html) settled the secession question once and for all and any and all secession clauses or ordinances in the various states are null. The Union is perpetual and indissoluble.

Just like the old USSR, right?

And the old British Empire, right?

They too had their laws.

[Onkel Neal]

My bad, sorry. Somehow I always think there's 52 :doh: (Don't underestimate me though, I play pub-quizzes on a regular basis and I know most of the US capitals ;))

Don't sweat it, Obama made the same mistake :haha:

[Tribesman]

Maybe legal precedent (a flimsy and temporal pretext) says the Union is perpetual and, what that other is, now, but that could easily change.
How many states would have to agree on how many levels just to start to set such a change in motion

Majority rules! And if a state wants out of this sinking ship, that's the will of the people, who has the right to oppose?

The people. A state is just a state and the people are in all the states and beyond so what a state wants is not a majority by a long shot.

[mookiemookie]

I disagree. Maybe legal precedent (a flimsy and temporal pretext) says the Union is perpetual and, what that other is, now, but that could easily change. It's nuts to think that the US is a big backer of self-determination all over the world but not at home.

But it's not a "flimsy and temporal" legal precedent that says the Union is perpetual. It's the Constitution that does, and the Articles of Confederation before that. Salmon P. Chase:

"(The Union of the States) was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

If you want to throw out the Constitution and say screw you guys, we're outta here, that's one thing. It could be the will of the people. It could be the right thing to do. But you can't say it wouldn't be treason and destroying the existing governmental structure, and no state has the legal right to do it. So someone stating that is not a "historical revisionist guy" and Freiwillige should still check his facts and history before calling someone such. Q.E.D.

Well as a non American I'm no expert. And what Mookie said looks to make sense. But I always wondered what that flag exactly means nowadays. I mean I know it was the flag of the south in the Civil War, but what is it's meaning now? Does it just represent a general feel of rebellion? Or does it have a racial connotation too?
I'm just curious since I see this flag coming up in movies and series now and then and I always wonder what it is exactly that it stands for?

It is indeed a symbol of general rebellion. It's used, as Neal said, in a way to make the statement that "you're not gonna tell us what to do if we don't like it, and we'll resist up to and including going to war over it." Some would say that they don't mean it as advocating slavery, but the way I see it, the history of that flag and slavery are so intertwined as to be inseparable. It was an ugly time in our nation's history, and nothing to be romanticized or celebrated.

[August]

...who has the right to oppose"

As an American citizen I have that right. The entire United States is my home, not just the state in which I currently reside.

[Sailor Steve]

But it's not a "flimsy and temporal" legal precedent that says the Union is perpetual. It's the Constitution that does
Where, exactly? One of the biggest thorns in the side of the Constitutional Convention was the question of State Sovereignty, and it was never properly resolved. As to the question of secession, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed it was legal, though Madison councilled against it.

"We are determined to...sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than to give up the rights of self-government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness."
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, August 23, 1799, regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts.

"We should never think of separation except for repeated and enormous violations..."
-Madison's reply; showing that they both thought of it as acceptable in the right circumstances.

and the Articles of Confederation before that.
Not precisely. The preamble to the Articles describes the Union as "perpetual", but Article 2 says "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" and Article 3 describes the whole thing as "a firm league of friendship with each other".

As to Texas v. White, Chief Justice Chase made an interesting reach in his comments on Article 4 of The Constitution, granting, to my mind at least, powers to Congress that are not explicit in the Article. But the Supreme Court made their decision, and it is binding, at least until overturned by a later court, which has happened more than once.

[Onkel Neal]

But it's not a "flimsy and temporal" legal precedent that says the Union is perpetual. It's the Constitution that does, and the Articles of Confederation before that. Salmon P. Chase:
"(The Union of the States) was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"

That's really reaching, in my opinion. Reminds me of Bible interpretating. If the Constitution had declared right out "Once a state enters into the Union, it cannot leave, ever." that would have made an arguement of indissolublity.


If you want to throw out the Constitution and say screw you guys, we're outta here, that's one thing. It could be the will of the people. It could be the right thing to do. But you can't say it wouldn't be treason and destroying the existing governmental structure, and no state has the legal right to do it.

Again, I disagree. I'm not a Constituional scholar at all, but in the end, as I see it, the Constitution, awesome as it is, is still just a document of law and laws change. It's like the War Powers Act, it can be circumvented. The Constitution was created on the basis of rebellion. Hard to argue that is it the last word in non-rebellion.



Some would say that they don't mean it as advocating slavery, but the way I see it, the history of that flag and slavery are so intertwined as to be inseparable. It was an ugly time in our nation's history, and nothing to be romanticized or celebrated.

Yeah, "state's rights" they say. The "state right" that mattered the most was the right to slavery. The war was over slavery, simple as that. Without slavery, there would have been nothing contentious between the North and South, nothing to get secession started. The Conferedate flag will always be linked to slavery advocation. :yep:

[mookiemookie]

Where, exactly? One of the biggest thorns in the side of the Constitutional Convention was the question of State Sovereignty, and it was never properly resolved. As to the question of secession, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed it was legal, though Madison councilled against it.

"We are determined to...sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than to give up the rights of self-government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness."
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, August 23, 1799, regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts.

"We should never think of separation except for repeated and enormous violations..."
-Madison's reply; showing that they both thought of it as acceptable in the right circumstances.


Not precisely. The preamble to the Articles describes the Union as "perpetual", but Article 2 says "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" and Article 3 describes the whole thing as "a firm league of friendship with each other".

As to Texas v. White, Chief Justice Chase made an interesting reach in his comments on Article 4 of The Constitution, granting, to my mind at least, powers to Congress that are not explicit in the Article. But the Supreme Court made their decision, and it is binding, at least until overturned by a later court, which has happened more than once.

I'm in line with his reasoning. The preamble (and the very name of the document - Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) said that the Union is perpetual. Article 2 doesn't grant the right to secede as it would directly contradict that perpetual nature of the Union. That is the basis of the Constitution forming a more perfect Union. A more perpetual, a more binding Union. That phrase alone in my mind builds on the Articles and reaffirms the notion that once a state is admitted to the Union, it's permanent.

[Sailor Steve]

I'm in line with his reasoning. The preamble (and the very name of the document - Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union) said that the Union is perpetual.
The Constitution didn't supplement or add to the Articles, it overwrote it. Legally speaking the Articles are nonexistant. In the matter of intent, I tend to agree, but there is always that argument between Literal Interpretation and Original Intent.

Article 2 doesn't grant the right to secede as it would directly contradict that perpetual nature of the Union. That is the basis of the Constitution forming a more perfect Union. A more perpetual, a more binding Union. That phrase alone in my mind builds on the Articles and reaffirms the notion that once a state is admitted to the Union, it's permanent.
The Constitution defines how the Federal Government is to be run, nothing more. The Amendments define how that Government is restricted from interfering with the People, and with the States. The States are prohibited from infriging the peoples' rights, but they are still autonomous in everything else. Federal power derives from the States, and is only as strong as they allow it to be, within the limits predetermined by the Constitution. It doesn't say they can secede? It also doesn't say they can't, and Amendment 10 still carries some weight.

The "Father of the Constitution" believed that the states had the right to secede, and that's good enough for me. But then I don't make the laws, so we'll have to see what the future holds.

[mookiemookie]

The "Father of the Constitution" believed that the states had the right to secede, and that's good enough for me. But then I don't make the laws, so we'll have to see what the future holds.

I'll concede that it certainly has been interpreted by the Supreme Court (as is their duty) to be the case that secession is unconstitutional and a right not granted to any state. The principle of stare decisis would suggest that's the way it is and will be, but like you said, who knows what the future will hold.

But whether or not the court was correct in interpreting things that way was not my original argument. It was that to say someone is wrong for claiming secession is treason and calling them a "revisionist" is ignoring the reality of the situation and is ignorant of history.

[Sailor Steve]

It was that to say someone is wrong for claiming secession is treason and calling them a "revisionist" is ignoring the reality of the situation and is ignorant of history.
Good point. I don't know the answer, and I debate both sides of this one.

Of course "Revisionist" is an epithet usually thrown by someone whose opinion differs from his target, and rarely reflects any actual knowledge of history.