Restricted All Recent Confederate Heritage & Battle Flag Events...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
People get very emotional about these issues. Let's take a breath. Please direct any comments to the issue, not the other participants in this thread.
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
Whats your source for "being made by local people"? Most cases I've read Its being made councils or commissions and not being put to a vote on a ballot to see what actual majority of local people want.

A partisan commission or council does not always actually represent its populace...........We had a good example of that here a few years ago with a local health board..........After repeatedly saying they would not take unilateral action on a ordinance.......they did........the next election they were voted out, and the ordinance suspended..........That they DID pass it, DID NOT represent the will of the people of the county at all however.............

Would also question why a City Council should be deciding what is a monument to county or state sacrifices.........would think the County or the State should be deciding, if that is what the monument represents...............Nor should any form of government accept donated monuments, if they didn't/don't expect to display them in good faith.

What you describe is the local policy that was established and can be changed with enough support. Effectively these are all branches of a Democratic Republic.

Some States have in fact developed some forms of direct democracy. For example here in California there are both paths for local and state wide direct democracy. Meaning at both levels if enough people get a petition signed and follow a process they can get measured directly on the ballots that are voted directly by the people (either via local region or for the whole State).

Some other States have some of this as well, though many don't. States rights and all give the States the freedom to choose (meaning the people of the State). If the population of your State didn't choose to go down that route (or in your locality) with enough support they can change such things if they so choose, if it's important enough.

Otherwise the established process of local control is what it is and even the ones furthest removed from direct democracy almost always lead up to some sort of elected official. Such are the consequences of the vote in this scenario.

As far as county vs city, if it's some public decoration in the city, wouldn't it make most sense for the residents of that city (and their established local process) be the ones to control what decorations they live with?

If our Constitution itself was designed around Amending it, modifying it (hence the bill of rights, banning slavery, women's vote, etc) why not let the same sort of processes guide public decoration.
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
The votes of a mayor and 7 councilmen would show the will of 8 people, that is common knowledge................Politicians are elected for and on a multitude of different issues, It certainly in no way reflects the opinions of the populace on any one specific issue..........do you honestly believe if one polled the population on Gun control, CSA Monuments and Infrastructure, that on every issue the council make up is going to accurately reflect the populaces? Because it wont.............

Polls do somewhat with margins of error, and an actual election vote on a ballot measure does........

And the polls tend to not support your claims in either support for monument removal nationally or in the south, and as to the Confederate flag, USA Today noted nationally it is split......however in the south it isn't, and is viewed by majority there as symbol of heritage. Even the Huffington Post which is hardly a bastion of conservatism concedes that on monuments. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/confederate-statues-removal-polls_us_599de056e4b05710aa59841c

If your going to keep making this claim that people don't want the will of local city/towns done.......would think you should be able to show a vote or poll on the specific issue that has a larger sample size then of 4-8 people in the municipality to reflect this overwhelming will you seem to imply. Which is all I asked for.........


You are making some pretty broad claims about polls without referencing specific ones. Even the article you link points out a poll that got different results by wording it differently (somehow you seemed to avoid pointing that out, despite it being in the title

"Polls Find Little Support For Confederate Statue Removal — But How You Ask Matters"

Part of the problem is public decoration of a city doesn't belong to a Nation, not even the State. It belongs to a city, town, or locality where it exists. As most of us know I'm sure opinions can sharply differ on a rural vs urban level, so often you can get very different sentiments in a city vs the State generalized.

One example is New Orleans and it's removal. Louisiana as a whole opposes removal
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/04/confederate_monuments.html

Though New Orleans is a very different story
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/04/new_orleans_voters_less_satisf.html

"Overall, 50 percent support removing them, 31 percent oppose and 19 percent didn't answer. The answers correlated largely to race, with African-Americans in favor and most whites opposed."

So it's important to keep context in mind. If anything all the data we have shows people are split and some aren't so simple either, for example some of the polls ask things like whether you want the monuments remove from all public spaces. I'm not sure that represents my own view, where I think locals should decide, though I completely understand why people now might not feel the same about their public decorations chosen 70-100 years ago. I also want such monuments that are removed to be moved to museum or some place like that. Hence why the article you link showed the numbers for "removal" were much higher when phrased as relocation.

In the end it doesn't matter though, it's what official process your locality has for deciding such matters, much like process at the time that was used to place them in the first place. People just need to engage in their local system to get themselves heard.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
As far as county vs city, if it's some public decoration in the city, wouldn't it make most sense for the residents of that city (and their established local process) be the ones to control what decorations they live with?

So by that argument secession was legal, if it was decided at some level by the electorate?

However if one is going to argue federal laws trumps state.......by same logic, state
would trump county, and county over city..........Seems odd one argues the higher authority should take precedent in some cases........then turn around and argue the lowest as in a city should be able to defy state law...............

Honestly just seems a case of just wanting to find whatever level agrees with one personally, then arguing that level should have the supreme say..............the problem I see with this, is the level that should be supreme is going to conditionally change depending on what the issue is and if you agree with that levels opinion............
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
I bet your position would be different if it were monuments to something/someone that mattered to you... and it probably will reach that point one day, but I do not wish it upon you. (BTW, you can say that it wouldn't, but you really have no idea until you have to go through it.)

There are far worse things being subjected to you than your preference of monument being removed/relocated. In reality I'm not sure there is a single person here who hasn't seen a change in their locality that they don't like, whether it be public decoration or not.

Though even if it effects something that matters to the person, it doesn't change what cash said

Because they have the right to govern and determine who their locality will honor. As an outsider, your viewpoint is irrelevant to that.

This is why we have the processes we do have and each State had and has a great deal of freedom in controlling it. Personally I don't care if people put Confederate flags up like the OP or take them down (despite the fact I think they have no real place in public places except in places specifically designed for history). That's their choice.

In my current state of California there are forms of direct democracy that have been established by the people so they have a lot more direct influence than many other places. Other States could adapt their State Constitutions according to that if they wished to move more power towards direct democracy rather than representative democracy (such as city councils etc).

What does it matter what I think about a Confederate flag (or any other public display) elsewhere. I'll share my thoughts of course if people are discussing, but I would never suggest my opinion be imposed on those people over their established process for controlling such things.
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
So by that argument secession was legal, if it was decided at some level by the electorate?

I have no clue what anything I said suggests anything about secession. The local rules I refer to are specifically designed within our system and have always been the case, States before and after the CSA's attempted secession have always had quite a bit of control how they govern things via their State Constitutions. None of that effects secession at all. Not sure what you're getting at, please clarify.

Just because one supports certain specific State rights doesn't mean they support every possible one, like secession. Much like I support certain individual rights, but say not one to murder anyone.

However if one is going to argue federal laws trumps state.......by same logic state would trump county, and county over city..........Seems odd one argues the higher authority should take precedent in some cases........then turn around and argue the lowest as in a city should be able to defy state law...............

I haven't argued any of that. I'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm talking about specific processes established in State Constitutions, which are different per State. Some States have some forms of direct democracy, others only representative (like city councils).

Honestly just seems a case of just wanting to find whatever level agrees with one personally, then arguing that level should have the supreme say..............the problem I see with this, is the level that should be supreme is going to conditionally change depending on what the issue is and if you agree with that levels opinion............

Again I don't know what you're talking about. As I said here in California (as in some other places) I could go get a petition on a local or State level and try to get people to directly to vote on things, such as public monuments etc. That is the California State Constitution. Others States chose different Constitutions that fit them. I'm all for them choosing to adopt forms of direct democracy and controlling their monuments. So no you're wrong, I'm all for the freedom of the place to choose. What I'm referring to is the way our Nation works and has always worked, with State Constitutions that govern the States specific processes outside of the Federal level issues. A State level process can't usually violate a Federally mandated one, but the Federal government doesn't impose what monuments you want to display or not, hence them not stopping Confederate monuments in the first place.

If you don't like your local process, change it. I support your involvement in your local system if you do. If you want to raise or lower Confederate flags or monuments, I support you. It's your place, I don't want you dictating what I have on display in my City (though I'll talk about it). Why would it be any other way?
 

JonnyReb_In_MI

Corporal
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Location
Southeast Michigan
There are far worse things being subjected to you than your preference of monument being removed/relocated.

Yes, there are, and some of those things may be on the way once there are no more monuments to mess with. My preference? That's putting it mildly, at best. I'll say the same as I said to Cash... When it hits something that matters to you, then maybe you'll understand.
 

MattL

Guest
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Location
SF Bay Area
I have no clue what anything I said suggests anything about secession. The local rules I refer to are specifically designed within our system and have always been the case, States before and after the CSA's attempted secession have always had quite a bit of control how they govern things via their State Constitutions. None of that effects secession at all. Not sure what you're getting at, please clarify.

Just because one supports certain specific State rights doesn't mean they support every possible one, like secession. Much like I support certain individual rights, but say not one to murder anyone.



I haven't argued any of that. I'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm talking about specific processes established in State Constitutions, which are different per State. Some States have some forms of direct democracy, others only representative (like city councils).



Again I don't know what you're talking about. As I said here in California (as in some other places) I could go get a petition on a local or State level and try to get people to directly to vote on things, such as public monuments etc. That is the California State Constitution. Others States chose different Constitutions that fit them. I'm all for them choosing to adopt forms of direct democracy and controlling their monuments. So no you're wrong, I'm all for the freedom of the place to choose. What I'm referring to is the way our Nation works and has always worked, with State Constitutions that govern the States specific processes outside of the Federal level issues. A State level process can't usually violate a Federally mandated one, but the Federal government doesn't impose what monuments you want to display or not, hence them not stopping Confederate monuments in the first place.

If you don't like your local process, change it. I support your involvement in your local system if you do. If you want to raise or lower Confederate flags or monuments, I support you. It's your place, I don't want you dictating what I have on display in my City (though I'll talk about it). Why would it be any other way?


Btw I look forward to your response, especially clarifying parts that I am confused by since nothing I said involves secession. Though I probably won't respond for a while, been up all night working and time to get at least a couple hours of sleep before I start working again. So please take no offense if you don't see a response for a while, not upset or anything :smile:
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I have no clue what anything I said suggests anything about secession. The local rules I refer to are specifically designed within our system and have always been the case, States before and after the CSA's attempted secession have always had quite a bit of control how they govern things via their State Constitutions. None of that effects secession at all. Not sure what you're getting at, please clarify.

Just because one supports certain specific State rights doesn't mean they support every possible one, like secession. Much like I support certain individual rights, but say not one to murder anyone.



I haven't argued any of that. I'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm talking about specific processes established in State Constitutions, which are different per State. Some States have some forms of direct democracy, others only representative (like city councils).



Again I don't know what you're talking about. As I said here in California (as in some other places) I could go get a petition on a local or State level and try to get people to directly to vote on things, such as public monuments etc. That is the California State Constitution. Others States chose different Constitutions that fit them. I'm all for them choosing to adopt forms of direct democracy and controlling their monuments. So no you're wrong, I'm all for the freedom of the place to choose. What I'm referring to is the way our Nation works and has always worked, with State Constitutions that govern the States specific processes outside of the Federal level issues. A State level process can't usually violate a Federally mandated one, but the Federal government doesn't impose what monuments you want to display or not, hence them not stopping Confederate monuments in the first place.

If you don't like your local process, change it. I support your involvement in your local system if you do. If you want to raise or lower Confederate flags or monuments, I support you. It's your place, I don't want you dictating what I have on display in my City (though I'll talk about it). Why would it be any other way?

A claim has been made that state law is being used to suppress lower levels of government laws, and that somehow that is wrong............That's how its supposed to work.........Every municipality was never intended to be able to defy county, state, or Federal law.......If so I'd declare my farm Steveville and vote we shouldn't pay taxes to anyone except Steveville.

To allow every village, town or city to pass its own laws with no compliance or reference to state and federal would be chaos....

I would argue the reason we look to larger majorities with higher levels of government, such as Federal and State is exactly to protect people from being run over roughshod by local majorities and to extend some actual uniform protections............​
 
Last edited:

WJC

Major General
Judge Adv. Genl.
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
***Posted as Moderator***
This is a volatile issue, particularly as it involves protest of Confederate monument removals.

I have moved all posts to the dedicated thread,"All Recent Confederate Heritage & Battle Flag Events..."
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
The only interest I have in Allan Gurganus would be how he was paid by the New York Times for the article.

Are you under the impression the New York Times pays writers to write articles for the newspaper that espouse a particular viewpoint that the Times dictates to them?
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Are you under the impression the New York Times pays writers to write articles for the newspaper that espouse a particular viewpoint that the Times dictates to them?

I have the impression that the New York Times wouldn't let a writer willing to say anything favorable about the South write an article for them if he offered it to them free.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
I have the impression that the New York Times wouldn't let a writer willing to say anything favorable about the South write an article for them if he offered it to them free.

You haven't read the op-ed piece in question, have you?
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
You haven't read the op-ed piece in question, have you?

No, I've haven't, now please tell me that the poster(#889) cherrypicked "Trust me. The South is no place for beginners. It's power of denial can turn a lost war into a vibrant, necessary form of national chic." so I can feel better about Allan Gurganus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top