Should states have more power than feds?

[Paketo]

you do know that succession was a legal act back then

Not according to the Supreme Court or the very fact that a civil war as fought at all. Though on that second point, perhaps the fact that the Treasonous Slavers attacked first mitigates it somewhat.

it was made illegal after the war but before the civil war it was a legal act

[Llamalandia]

Why do some states have the Confederate flag as a part of their state flag? Surely a nation whose existence was solely an act of treason should not have its treasonous symbols and images adapted to state representation? Shouldn't that be generally frowned upon?

you do know that succession was a legal act back then

that seems to be a dubious statement, I would posit that all the states would have to agree to allow a state to secede but I can't really back up that assertion. :)

[Paketo]

you do know that succession was a legal act back then

that seems to be a dubious statement, I would posit that all the states would have to agree to allow a state to secede but I can't really back up that assertion. :)

it was legal so that if the states disagreed with the government on the their polices then they could just leave the country

[Frisivisia]

Not according to the Supreme Court or the very fact that a civil war as fought at all. Though on that second point, perhaps the fact that the Treasonous Slavers attacked first mitigates it somewhat.

it was made illegal after the war but before the civil war it was a legal act

Even so, using the flag of a horribly racist, slaver nation whose acts and entire existence were treasonous seems bad.

[The Nuclear Fist]

it was legal so that if the states disagreed with the government on the their polices then they could just leave the country

And I'm going to need a source for that, as the Supreme Court seems to think that it was never legal at all.

Also, using the flag of a nation formed purely out of treason and a vicious need to preserve the enslavement of human beings to support an unsustainable cash crop dependency should not be allowed.

[Paketo]

it was legal so that if the states disagreed with the government on the their polices then they could just leave the country

And I'm going to need a source for that, as the Supreme Court seems to think that it was never legal at all.

Also, using the flag of a nation formed purely out of treason and a vicious need to preserve the enslavement of human beings to support an unsustainable cash crop dependency should not be allowed.

the north was the biggest buyer of southern slave labor products to make their products like clothes, tables etc so the north also depended on cash crops

[The Nuclear Fist]

the north was the biggest buyer of southern slave labor products to make their products like clothes, tables etc so the north also depended on cash crops

The Union got along just fine without them during the civil war and beyond, the CSA's primary customer was always Britain IIRC. 'King Cotton' was not going to last forever, and when it did the CSA would have been doomed.

[Paketo]

the north was the biggest buyer of southern slave labor products to make their products like clothes, tables etc so the north also depended on cash crops

The Union got along just fine without them during the civil war and beyond, the CSA's primary customer was always Britain IIRC. 'King Cotton' was not going to last forever, and when it did the CSA would have been doomed.

Actually North was primary costumer and Britain was the primary seller. The south bought most of it's goods from Britain but most cotton from the south went to the north's textile mills.

[Llamalandia]

that seems to be a dubious statement, I would posit that all the states would have to agree to allow a state to secede but I can't really back up that assertion. :)

it was legal so that if the states disagreed with the government on the their polices then they could just leave the country

Unless you intend to cite either international or natural law doctrine I see little evidence that you can make a convincing case for the legality of secession for the union. Every supreme court decision has affirmed that it's basically impossible for a state to leave the union (save perhaps with the consent of all others). Just saying it's legal doesn't make it so. The Revolution against Britain was illegal but morally justified, just because something isn't legal doesn't mean is wrong (though often the implication is that it is in fact wrong).

[Paketo]

it was legal so that if the states disagreed with the government on the their polices then they could just leave the country

Unless you intend to cite either inter nation or natural law doctrine I see little evidence that you can make a convincing case for the legality of secession for the union. Every supreme court decision has affirmed that it's basically impossible for a state to leave the union (save perhaps with the consent of all others). Just saying it's legal doesn't make it so. The Revolution against Britain was illegal but morally justified, just because something isn't legal doesn't mean is wrong (though often the implication is that it is in fact wrong).

again I state modern day it has been made illegal but before the civil war it was a legal act which is why the union was not at war with south Carolina immediately.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Actually North was primary costumer and Britain was the primary seller. The south bought most of it's goods from Britain but most cotton from the south went to the north's textile mills.

Yeah, I'm going to need a source for that claim, because Wikipedia doesn't mention that being the case at all.

[The Nuclear Fist]

again I state modern day it has been made illegal but before the civil war it was a legal act which is why the union was not at war with south Carolina immediately.

And I'm sure that you're going to provide a source for the claim that secession was legal and permitted at the time.

[Paketo]

Actually North was primary costumer and Britain was the primary seller. The south bought most of it's goods from Britain but most cotton from the south went to the north's textile mills.

Yeah, I'm going to need a source for that claim, because Wikipedia doesn't mention that being the case at all.

look at the tariffs, south was always against it because they got goods from aboard and tariffs would raise the cost of those goods

[The Nuclear Fist]

look at the tariffs, south was always against it because they got goods from aboard and tariffs would raise the cost of those goods

Once again, provide a source saying that the bulk of the South's cotton was consumed by the North, and that the North depended on it. Europe did not need it as evidenced by my sources and the Union did not seem to need it either.

[Llamalandia]

Unless you intend to cite either inter nation or natural law doctrine I see little evidence that you can make a convincing case for the legality of secession for the union. Every supreme court decision has affirmed that it's basically impossible for a state to leave the union (save perhaps with the consent of all others). Just saying it's legal doesn't make it so. The Revolution against Britain was illegal but morally justified, just because something isn't legal doesn't mean is wrong (though often the implication is that it is in fact wrong).

again I state modern day it has been made illegal but before the civil war it was a legal act which is why the union was not at war with south Carolina immediately.

I find this argument also dubious as during the ratification of the constitution a delegate from New York wanted to make ratification contingent on his states being allowed to leave the union if the bill of rights was not ratified in a timely manner after ratification of the constitution and this provision was rejected. Additionally, given that the supreme court was no huge fan of the north or lincoln (especiallychief justice Taney) it seems unlikely that if secession were a legal act that they would not have stepped in to stop an "illegal war of northern aggression" and yet they did not so hold. :)

[Distruzio]

Why do some states have the Confederate flag as a part of their state flag? Surely a nation whose existence was solely an act of treason should not have its treasonous symbols and images adapted to state representation? Shouldn't that be generally frowned upon?

Before the 14th amendment, treason was committed against the individual state - not the Union. No seceding state engaged in treasonous activity.

[Llamalandia]

Why do some states have the Confederate flag as a part of their state flag? Surely a nation whose existence was solely an act of treason should not have its treasonous symbols and images adapted to state representation? Shouldn't that be generally frowned upon?

Before the 14th amendment, treason was committed against the individual state - not the Union. No seceding state engaged in treasonous activity.

No.
Article 3
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
From wikipedia (quoting the constitution) I'm lazy but yeah. Emophasis my own:):)

[Distruzio]

Before the 14th amendment, treason was committed against the individual state - not the Union. No seceding state engaged in treasonous activity.

No.
Article 3
Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
From wikipedia (quoting the constitution) I'm lazy but yeah. Emophasis my own:):)

Well, color me corrected.

[Ifreann]

Not according to the Supreme Court or the very fact that a civil war as fought at all. Though on that second point, perhaps the fact that the Treasonous Slavers attacked first mitigates it somewhat.

it was made illegal after the war but before the civil war it was a legal act

Hey look, you don't understand how the Supreme Court works. It wasn't made illegal. The Supreme Court found that unilateral secession is not legally possible. It was never legal.

[The USOT]

it was legal so that if the states disagreed with the government on the their polices then they could just leave the country

And I'm going to need a source for that, as the Supreme Court seems to think that it was never legal at all.

Also, using the flag of a nation formed purely out of treason and a vicious need to preserve the enslavement of human beings to support an unsustainable cash crop dependency should not be allowed.

Whilst I agree the confederacy was not great, that doesnt mean the flag should not be used. Hell from the perspective of many people that description fits the US perfectly in its treatment of some nations in the past.

Simply put, the confederate flag is (imo) very stylish.

[Petrovsegratsk]

There should be an equal distribution of power, so the states AND feds have power, but not too much power.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Whilst I agree the confederacy was not great, that doesnt mean the flag should not be used.

It shouldn't be used because the Confederacy was a traitorous rebellion, and putting that as a state's flag implies it supports such an action.

Simply put, the confederate flag is (imo) very stylish.

No, it's not. Just like the American flag, the Confederate flag is very ugly, as is the 'Stars and Bars' battle flag.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

Whilst I agree the confederacy was not great, that doesnt mean the flag should not be used.

It shouldn't be used because the Confederacy was a traitorous rebellion, and putting that as a state's flag implies it supports such an action.

Simply put, the confederate flag is (imo) very stylish.

No, it's not. Just like the American flag, the Confederate flag is very ugly, as is the 'Stars and Bars' battle flag.

I know I contributed to this (and was going to contribute more), but this is increasingly off-topic.

Reminiscing about (or re-writing of) history (particularly 200+ or 150+ year-old matters) maybe slightly relevant to modern questions of federal versus state power. Secession was somewhat related to state vs. federal power -- but not really relevant since the Civil War ended and the matter is well-settled now. The causes of the Civil War is not actually relevant to whether secession was legal and totally unrelated to modern questions of federalism. The meaning of various Confederate flags is even more unrelated.

If there is no more to say on this topic, let it end (as it probably should have long ago). If one wishes to discuss the meaning of various Confederate flags, please start a new thread. But let us not create an essential new thread out of this one with an extended threadjack.

[The Nuclear Fist]

So what is the actual benefit of the bulk of the power being focused in state governments?

[Dyakovo]

Why do some states have the Confederate flag as a part of their state flag? Surely a nation whose existence was solely an act of treason should not have its treasonous symbols and images adapted to state representation? Shouldn't that be generally frowned upon?

you do know that succession was a legal act back then

No, it wasn't. Spoiled brats not accepting the reality of the Constitution superseding the Articles of Confederation =/= it actually being legal.