• 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!

Perry once defended Confederate symbols

...From the southern point of view, if slavery was abolished, it would wreck their economy. So they saw no choice but to secede....

Tough ****. Cry me a river. Human dignity & freedom is more important that than the cotton industry.
 
I am really torn on this one. True, the Confederate flag represents slavery to most people, as the primary purpose in the South's secession was their insistence that they had the right to slavery. But it goes much deeper than that. The Stars and Bars also represents the South's view that the North supported slavery too.... The kind of slavery that comes with one region imposing it's will on another. Yea, I know, I know, it's not the same thing, but there was a culture in the South that saw the big Government of the North as a dictator. In that sense, the Confederate flag represents small government. From the Revolution onward, the South was the poster child for smaller government, and has always been.

To the KKK'ers who fly the Confederate flag, **** you. I know what kind of people you are. To the others who fly it, you have my blessing. I understand that the Confederate flag represents a philosophy of smaller government that is returning, after having been.... gone with the wind.... Yea, had to rip that line to set up my closing statement. As much as I detest Rick Perry, I see no problem with his supporting Confederate symbols. As for the politically correct who want to ban those symbols, frankly, I don't give a damn.

Article is here.

When the war began, the north had slaves. It was legal.

The war was about trade.

Freeing slaves was just a political tool for victory, not the product of some ethical/spiritual/moral evolutionary leap.
 
yes, I know this. I also know that he led insurrections against slavery.

I believe he led just one. And was captured by the Marines and hanged for his crime.
 
Tough ****. Cry me a river. Human dignity & freedom is more important that than the cotton industry.

There was a much deeper economic battle going on long before the south told the north to go suck a rock. The north's move away from slavery was purely economic.
 
yes, the CSA kept their slaves even AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation, which vioated federal law.

Please show us where the United States Constitution provides for any states or other territories to secede from the nation.

It doesn't nor does it state that secession was against the law. It therefore cannot have been illegal as there was no law preventing it.

I would point your attention to the Constitution to Article 1, Section. There you will find all delegated authority assigned to the federal government. What you will not find is any mention of secession. The union was an agreement among states, not a binding law.

The good people of the South had the Declaration of Independence to provide them guidance in making the monumental decision to leave the union:

"… that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government …"

And that is what Dixie did.
 
Oh and,

Thunder said:
yes, the CSA kept their slaves even AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation, which vioated federal law.

The CSA didn't violate federal law. They had long before seceded.
 
Tough ****. Cry me a river. Human dignity & freedom is more important that than the cotton industry.


You can't say that the North fought to free the slaves and do it with a straight face. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until the last year of the war and it freed the slaves in the South, not the North. Northern slaves weren't freed until after the war.

Hindsight shows that industrial technology was going to make slavery uneconomical anyway, but they didn't know it at the time.
 
...What you will not find is any mention of secession. The union was an agreement among states, not a binding law...

wrong. we are not a union of separate states, like the EU. we are ONE nation. the states are now simply administrative districts, for the purposes of bureaucracy.

no provisions in the Constitution were made for the states' right to secede, because they all understood that when you ratified the Constitution you were not joining a Confederation of quasi-sovereign states, but one nation. All aspects of sovereignty were gone, including the right to print money, make treaties, appoint ambassadors, and secede.

State secession is no more legal then that it is today.
 
Last edited:
Whatever about the "CSA" (and I thought that was just "community supported agriculture") and states rights hisorical rhetorical arguing- Bottom line is this is yet one more reason Rick Perry is completely unelectable. Mississippi, TX, et al. don't have the electors to get you to the whitehouse, and that confederate flag stuff doesn't fly too well in most of this country. Especially when you add it to the "Niggerhead Rock" story out this week. This sounds like the Perry death knell from where I sit.

Sorry to bring it back to the 21st century...
 
wrong. we are not a union of separate states, like the EU. we are ONE nation. the states are now simply administrative districts, for the purposes of bureaucracy.

I thought we were talking about the Confederate States of America. Which are you talking about? I've been arguing the legality of the South's secession. You are talking about current status of the union. I am confused.

no provisions in the Constitution were made for the states' right to secede, because they all understood that when you ratified the Constitution you were not joining a Confederation of quasi-sovereign states, but one nation. All aspects of sovereignty were gone, including the right to print money, make treaties, appoint ambassadors, and secede.

Proof? You haven't any. If you do, pony it up.

While you scramble madly to backfill the whole you are digging search too for the Treaty of Paris 1783.

State secession is no more legal then that it is today.

And we are to take you at your word or can you cite references for any of the pap and drivel falling from your lips?
 
I don't think there's anything to this story except what the credulous and those who rush to judgment make of it. If you can find evidence that Perry is a racist, please produce it. His father joining a hunting lease that had an old rock with an offensive word on it on the land just doesn't do it for me.

If you're aware of racist political decisions that Perry has made or racist remarks, I'd be interested to learn what they are.
 
Eventually you have no clue about American history.

The Confederate Flag is the Symbol of the South....Except it.

There are many other countries around the world, that have old flags flying in cities from past historical meanings. In England, Italy, France, Germany. They have many more flags flying on their goverment properties, besides their primary national flag.

So get over it. Go eat an ice cream cone

LOL, he has admitted he never heard of the FDR court packing scheme after denying my claim FDR threatened the USSC
 
The Emancipation Proclamation-as I recall-only applied to the confederacy
 
I don't think there's anything to this story except what the credulous and those who rush to judgment make of it. If you can find evidence that Perry is a racist, please produce it. His father joining a hunting lease that had an old rock with an offensive word on it on the land just doesn't do it for me.

If you're aware of racist political decisions that Perry has made or racist remarks, I'd be interested to learn what they are.

I'm not saying he's a rascist or not. I'm only asserting that being associated with these two racially charged stories will be enough to drag him down and out. Call me a cynic, but the truth of these matters doesn't really count one way or the other, perception does. His campaign has been sliding for weeks now, and this might just be the swan song into irrelevancy.
 
I don't think there's anything to this story except what the credulous and those who rush to judgment make of it. If you can find evidence that Perry is a racist, please produce it. His father joining a hunting lease that had an old rock with an offensive word on it on the land just doesn't do it for me.

If you're aware of racist political decisions that Perry has made or racist remarks, I'd be interested to learn what they are.

Perry's hunting lodge is not even the topic of this thread, but since you have chosen to inject it into our discussion, I am more than happy to talk about it. True, when Perry was younger, his father bought a hunting lodge called Niggerhead, but painted over that word when he took over. That makes it pretty much a non-story, does not show racism, and not even worthy of discussion.

Back to the topic of Confederate symbols.
 
Perry's hunting lodge is not even the topic of this thread, but since you have chosen to inject it into our discussion, I am more than happy to talk about it. True, when Perry was younger, his father bought a hunting lodge called Niggerhead, but painted over that word when he took over. That makes it pretty much a non-story, does not show racism, and not even worthy of discussion.

Back to the topic of Confederate symbols.

Ok... so I'll admit I'm looking at the broader context. I daresay Perry is a part of the discussion, as he is in the title after all...

Here's the point: non-story or not, Rick Perry's name has been tossed around in the media with a lot of **** this week, including the stars and bars story and the hunting cabin story. He's not going to smell too good even if it wasn't his **** in the first place.

And besides, being the good Yankee that I am... who would want to fly the flag of the losing side anyway ;) Didn't this all get settled 150 years ago?
 
I am really torn on this one. True, the Confederate flag represents slavery to most people, as the primary purpose in the South's secession was their insistence that they had the right to slavery. But it goes much deeper than that. The Stars and Bars also represents the South's view that the North supported slavery too.... The kind of slavery that comes with one region imposing it's will on another. Yea, I know, I know, it's not the same thing, but there was a culture in the South that saw the big Government of the North as a dictator. In that sense, the Confederate flag represents small government. From the Revolution onward, the South was the poster child for smaller government, and has always been.

To the KKK'ers who fly the Confederate flag, **** you. I know what kind of people you are. To the others who fly it, you have my blessing. I understand that the Confederate flag represents a philosophy of smaller government that is returning, after having been.... gone with the wind.... Yea, had to rip that line to set up my closing statement. As much as I detest Rick Perry, I see no problem with his supporting Confederate symbols. As for the politically correct who want to ban those symbols, frankly, I don't give a damn.

Article is here.
I believe that the only flag an American should fly is the American flag, so that's my only issue with the confederate flag.

I do not view it as some sort of symbol of slavery and racism like a lot of the PC-tards do. We do not look at the British flag of the 18th century as a symbol of oppression. We do not accuse someone running a British style pub in the US with British flags of being a supporter of British Oppression or British rule. But yet anyone flying a confederate flag is accused of being a racist, support of slavery, a inbred redneck hillbilly or a KKK scumbag.
 
The confederate flag cannot be disassociated from slavery, as slavery was the central issue of the confederacy. Perry is a dimwit who's 15 minutes are up.
 
I have the US Constitution sitting in front of me. Please cite the Article & Section that stipulates how a state might go about seceding from the Union. Thanks.

Sorry I inadvertently left the section number out of a previous post.

I will begin, Thunder, by saying you have cited NOTHING, you have provided no sources and thus you have no compelling argument. "Because Thunder believes it" is no argument. You will never convince anyone of anything if you simply present your opinions as facts. You damn sure won't convince me. CITE YOUR SOURCES.

I would point your attention to the Constitution to Article 1, Section 8. There you will find all delegated authority assigned to the federal government.

You will find ALL the delegated authority to the federal government under the Constitution at the time of the War Between the States. What you will not find is any law prohibiting secession.

Let me explain. You may very well lie in your bed at night and pee straight up in the air. You may do it frequently as far as I know or you may not do it at all. I am aware of no law saying that you cannot do it. Therefore it is not illegal. As distasteful and depraved as it might be, there is to my knowledge no law against doing so. How does that work for you? No law = Not illegal.

In the absence of any language whatsoever regarding secession we are thus left to review laws, treaties and the like. To help end your torment and confusion I provided reference to the Declaration of Independence. I followed that with reference to the Treaty of Paris, 1783. You responded to neither. How did you find the Treaty of Paris not supportive of my position, that secession was not against the Constitution? That it was not illegal?

Here then is yet another source for you, as you cannot seem to find any, The Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
Last edited:
Not true, Texas v White left room for secession "through revolution, or through consent of the States".

Way to blow your own argument out of the water.

TvW found that TX's secession was "absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Way to blow your own argument out of the water.

TvW found that TX's secession was "absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the ruling:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
 
Back
Top Bottom