• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Confederate Memorial Day(s) exist?

Should Confederate Memorial Day(s) exist?


  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
UUUUUUUUUUUUGHUSIACBNFBKHDA8BSDV

Fine, I'll give you the link so you can see what they said exactly.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_______________________________________

Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from the Union and joined the Confederacy. In 1862 the confederationist government of the state transferred the bonds to several private individuals in payment for Confederate military supplies. After the Civil War the Reconstruction state government filed a suit in the Supreme Court seeking to recover the bonds, then held by citizens of various states.

The suit contended that the transfer of the bonds was illegal because the bonds were not signed by the governor, as required by federal law. The defendants contended that, while a state may bring a suit in the Supreme Court, Texas had no such right in this case because it had seceded and, therefore, the federal law was not applicable at the time the bonds were transferred.

The Supreme Court held that the intention of the Confederate States to secede meant that they had only temporarily lost privileges of Union membership but had not lost membership itself.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase commented that the federal Constitution “in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.” Thus, the Supreme Court decreed by law what the Union’s Civil War victory had effected by force, namely, the principle that no state may secede from the Union.


_____________________________________________________

?????????????????????? So IS THIS YOUR point ??????????????????????????

EDITED ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (from "what's your point" <---said in error)
 
Last edited:
to be clear..... "pursuit of happiness" has been translated into ..property HAS BEEN BY WHOM?

if you are asking, do the people have a right to alter or abolish their government, ..then yes it is a right of the people to do that.

So where's that translated into the Constitution? ^^^^^^
 
_______________________________________

Texas v. White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede. In 1850 the state of Texas received $10,000,000 in federal government bonds in settlement of boundary claims. In 1861 the state seceded from the Union and joined the Confederacy. In 1862 the confederationist government of the state transferred the bonds to several private individuals in payment for Confederate military supplies. After the Civil War the Reconstruction state government filed a suit in the Supreme Court seeking to recover the bonds, then held by citizens of various states.

The suit contended that the transfer of the bonds was illegal because the bonds were not signed by the governor, as required by federal law. The defendants contended that, while a state may bring a suit in the Supreme Court, Texas had no such right in this case because it had seceded and, therefore, the federal law was not applicable at the time the bonds were transferred.

The Supreme Court held that the intention of the Confederate States to secede meant that they had only temporarily lost privileges of Union membership but had not lost membership itself.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase commented that the federal Constitution “in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.” Thus, the Supreme Court decreed by law what the Union’s Civil War victory had effected by force, namely, the principle that no state may secede from the Union.


_____________________________________________________

?????????????????????? What's your point ??????????????????????????/

Have you not seen anything ernst barkmann has posted?

He states that states have the right to unilaterally secede. I'm correcting his mistake.
 
Have you not seen anything ernst barkmann has posted?

He states that states have the right to unilaterally secede. I'm correcting his mistake.

Sorry about that. My last line "So what's your point?" WAS MEANT TO SAY: So is this your point? Meaning to point out that The SC said NO STATE MAY SECEDE!
 
So if Texas secedes and calls itself the Texasistan neoCaliphate of America, you'd stall call its citizens Americans?

Texas is seceding? Nah, that isn't true. Stop teasing me!

Rick Perry wishes it was. But he's now spending too much time in court defending himself against criminal charges for abusing his power as governor... :lol:
 
So where's that translated into the Constitution? ^^^^^^




Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

the 5th is saying the federal government shall not deprived anyone of their rights [natural rights] without due process


AMENDMENT XIV


Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the 14th is saying no state shall abridge the privileges and immunities and the rights[natural rights] of any person without due process
 
Last edited:
We shouldn't honor traitors who broke free from the State to ensure that they could continue to engage in the most heinous institution in the country's history.

You're talkig about George Washington and his rebels, right?
 
If a State or town wishes to have such a holiday...why not? Last I knew the declaring of a holiday is not restricted to just the federal government. :shrug: And its their choice. :shrug:
 
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

the 5th is saying the federal government shall not deprived anyone of their rights [natural rights] without due process


AMENDMENT XIV


Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the 14th is saying no state shall abridge the privileges and immunities and the rights[natural rights] of any person without due process

And the irony of your argument is the entire reason why the south seceded from the union was so that they could preserve an evil institution that deprived an entire race of people of life, liberty, and property.
 
And the irony of your argument is the entire reason why the south seceded from the union was so that they could preserve an evil institution that deprived an entire race of people of life, liberty, and property.

Bit of a broad and simplistic statement.
 
Bit of a broad and simplistic statement.

There is nothing simplistic about it. The south seceded because they believed that legalized slavery was a states rights issue. As I pointed out earlier, I love the south, but we were in the wrong during the Civil War. We left the union to preserve one of the most evil institutions ever conceived of by man. You could not find a more vile and evil cause than the one the south fought for.
 
There is nothing simplistic about it. The south seceded because they believed that legalized slavery was a states rights issue. As I pointed out earlier, I love the south, but we were in the wrong during the Civil War. We left the union to preserve one of the most evil institutions ever conceived of by man. You could not find a more vile and evil cause than the one the south fought for.

Your posting was simplistic and overly broad because 1. there were also ther reasons and motivations that played a role and 2. you wrongly implied that all people of a particular race living in the South were slaves or unfree.

For the record, I don't dispute the centrality of the issue of slavery in the Civil War. But I prefer to be precise and not to make broad sweeping and simplistic statements that don't do justice to the complexities of historical reality.
 
A lot of confederate soldiers were drafted, and didn't enter the army willingly.

My great-great grandfather was conscripted right off his farm in Alabama leaving my great-great grandmother to care for her 5 children and small farm.
He was killed during the war and to add insult to injury the Yankees came through her farm taking what they wanted to feed their troops leaving my great-great grandmother behind to scrape by for her family.

The majority of Confederates were not slave owners but often just poor farmers trying to take care of their families. I don't think we need a Confederate Memorial Day but I don't think it is right to speak ill of them.
 
Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

the 5th is saying the federal government shall not deprived anyone of their rights [natural rights] without due process

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the 14th is saying no state shall abridge the privileges and immunities and the rights[natural rights] of any person without due process

Natural rights, uh?

EB, EB, EB, EB....Why in god's name would you attempt to drag "NATURAL RIGHTS" into you quotes from the 5th and 14th Amendments? Give it up EB.

"Due process of law" has been served on this issue and the decision of the law is that NO STATE can secede (Texas v White).

Even if there was a way to secede, there would be significant consequences for both the Union and a state that secedes. The national security for the remaining Union would have to be considered (would the seceding State be hostile toward the Union?). Access of highways, air space, railways within the seceded state would have dealt with. If a state had the right to secede, the national sovereignty of the seceding state would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people. The list goes on and on and on.

Even if we forgo any legal or Constitutional questions about the right of a state to secede - then there would really be one primary question left. "Political will".

So using the premise of a state seceding based strictly on "political will". The question is: How strong is the will of the people in the departing state to be free and independent of the control of a world superpower? How far will the U.S. government be prepared to go in imposing its will on a breakaway republic?

In other words....

A seceding state had better damn well be more than able of being its own sovereign state/nation in every capacity. Simple sanctions imposed by the United States of America would very quickly devastate any state that secedes.
 
Natural rights, uh?

EB, EB, EB, EB....Why in god's name would you attempt to drag "NATURAL RIGHTS" into you quotes from the 5th and 14th Amendments? Give it up EB.

"Due process of law" has been served on this issue and the decision of the law is that NO STATE can secede (Texas v White).

Even if there was a way to secede, there would be significant consequences for both the Union and a state that secedes. The national security for the remaining Union would have to be considered (would the seceding State be hostile toward the Union?). Access of highways, air space, railways within the seceded state would have dealt with. If a state had the right to secede, the national sovereignty of the seceding state would be transferred by the new Constitution to the whole of the American people. The list goes on and on and on.

Even if we forgo any legal or Constitutional questions about the right of a state to secede - then there would really be one primary question left. "Political will".

So using the premise of a state seceding based strictly on "political will". The question is: How strong is the will of the people in the departing state to be free and independent of the control of a world superpower? How far will the U.S. government be prepared to go in imposing its will on a breakaway republic?

In other words....

A seceding state had better damn well be more than able of being its own sovereign state/nation in every capacity. Simple sanctions imposed by the United States of America would very quickly devastate any state that secedes.

natural law/rights are part of the founding princples of america, the founders states natural rights, and U.S. FEDERAL LAW recognizes the principles of the declaration of in dependence....in U.S. enabling law

the founders stated the the federal government is not granted the authority to preserve the harmony of the union, and cannot use force on a state......may 31st 1787

constitution law before the civil war teaches that states are not bound to the union and may leave the union if the wish-- "View of the constitution 1825"

how far how a state would make it being it being on its own........who knows.
 
natural law/rights are part of the founding princples of america, the founders states natural rights, and U.S. FEDERAL LAW recognizes the principles of the declaration of in dependence....in U.S. enabling law

the founders stated the the federal government is not granted the authority to preserve the harmony of the union, and cannot use force on a state......may 31st 1787

constitution law before the civil war teaches that states are not bound to the union and may leave the union if the wish-- "View of the constitution 1825"

how far how a state would make it being it being on its own........who knows.

Principles aren't law...sorry. But the ensuring efforts of you to project the notion that our rights are from a higher power...isn't applicable in this topic.
 
And the irony of your argument is the entire reason why the south seceded from the union was so that they could preserve an evil institution that deprived an entire race of people of life, liberty, and property.

that is true..yes, but not all of the states left because of slavery, and this is made know by some of the states in their declaration of separation from the u.s.....as they stated that the u.s federal government would not upholding the constitution.

slaves at the time were considered property and not people, and life liberty and property did not apply to them.
 
principles are unwritten law...just like rights are unwritten law.

Dream on...you continue to support an erroneous belief system about the non-existent role of Natural Rights in a society clearly built on civil law.
 
Dream on...you continue to support an erroneous belief system about the non-existent role of Natural Rights in a society clearly built on civil law.


Unwritten Law
Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.

Most laws in America are written. The U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct<------self evident truths......... that the government has recognized <---------natural rights....................and enforced<-----by positive law

Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.

Much of International Law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the Rules of War governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the United Nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of Terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In Commercial Law the Uniform Commercial Code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of Common Law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or Maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.

unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law
 
Unwritten Law
Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.

Most laws in America are written. The U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct<------self evident truths......... that the government has recognized <---------natural rights....................and enforced<-----by positive law

Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.

Much of International Law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the Rules of War governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the United Nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of Terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.

In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In Commercial Law the Uniform Commercial Code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of Common Law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or Maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.

unwritten law legal definition of unwritten law

No need to repeat this fantasy.
 
that is true..yes, but not all of the states left because of slavery, and this is made know by some of the states in their declaration of separation from the u.s.....as they stated that the u.s federal government would not upholding the constitution.

slaves at the time were considered property and not people, and life liberty and property did not apply to them.

Which state didn't leave because of slavery?
 
Really? When? You see, I remember things like state secession, new CS flag, new currency, swearing of new military oaths, etc. Aka people who didn't want to be "Americans {as the word had meant prior} any more.
If I'm remembering incorrectly, why was there such resistance to the IronClad Oath ("Damnesty") ?

People that don't want to be Americans is different than Americans. Apparently Lincoln saw the difference better than you. Even issued a proclamation stating which Americans would be allowed to keep slaves or not.

Then he ordered his troops to kill those Americans.
 
Back
Top Bottom