Do you consider the Confederate flag to be racist

[Pandeeria]

In the geo-political context of being a sovereign nation.

What if no country recognizes your sovereignty?

You can get them to recognize your sovereignty through blood shed.
Or through diplomatic means.

If no one recognizes you, then sucks to be you.

[Dyakovo]

When foreign recognition becomes an accepted prerequisite for being a state that may be a valid point.

Alright?

It is.

[Geilinor]

If no one recognizes you, then sucks to be you.

You mean, "Sucks to be the CSA".

[Pandeeria]

You mean, "Sucks to be the CSA".

That's the entire point.

[Tekania]

What if no country recognizes your sovereignty?

You can get them to recognize your sovereignty through blood shed.
Or through diplomatic means.

If no one recognizes you, then sucks to be you.

That's the CSA.... legal nulliliy...... all legislative, court and executive statement mean nothing..... law with no jurisdiction is not law.

[Geilinor]

You can get them to recognize your sovereignty through blood shed.
Or through diplomatic means.

If no one recognizes you, then sucks to be you.

That's the CSA.... legal nulliliy...... all legislative, court and executive statement mean nothing..... law with no jurisdiction is not law.

I think that's the point.

[Shaggai]

Sovereign and independent how?

In the geo-political context of being a sovereign nation.

What's your opinion on Talossa?

[Tekania]

In the geo-political context of being a sovereign nation.

What's your opinion on Talossa?

I'd place its validity just a tad over Rivendell.

[Pandeeria]

In the geo-political context of being a sovereign nation.

What's your opinion on Talossa?

Where is it located? What is it's government? What's it's leader?

[Pandeeria]

You can get them to recognize your sovereignty through blood shed.
Or through diplomatic means.

If no one recognizes you, then sucks to be you.

That's the CSA.... legal nulliliy...... all legislative, court and executive statement mean nothing..... law with no jurisdiction is not law.

Agreed.

[The Liberal States of Russia]

The only Confederate flag that mattered was this one...

(Image)

We're going to get along well, I think.

Haha that's good

[Tekania]

Don't you understand? They had the right because they said so! I believe that was the definitive opinion given in Parent v. Recalcitrant Child.

I remember that one I think, Child asserted a non dominus meus claim that the court found lacked merit; and the case was decided in favor of Parent.

[Nazi Flower Power]

The only Confederate flag that mattered was this one...

(Image)

That's my favorite too.

I believe states should be allowed to secede, but I still just can't get behind the Confederate cause.

[Mormak]

Actually my point with that post was that there is no recognized absolute authority on what makes a state "legitimate" there isn't even a singular definition of it.

You're assuming that the person who declares their self independent is the ultimate authority.


This will exercise proves that your opinion is wrong.

No i am pointing out by one classification of "legitimacy" of state, they fit the criteria.

There is at least to my own perspective not such a thing as a "wrong" opinion, plenty of ill informed and ones i disagree with but i would never use blanket such as "wrong" that's me though.

[Alexzanabbgggggg]

Yes, it is one down form a swastika

[Pandeeria]

You're assuming that the person who declares their self independent is the ultimate authority.


This will exercise proves that your opinion is wrong.

No i am pointing out by one classification of "legitimacy" of state, they fit the criteria.

There is at least to my own perspective not such a thing as a "wrong" opinion, plenty of ill informed and ones i disagree with but i would never use blanket such as "wrong" that's me though.

I would argue theres "wrong" opinions. I could have the opinion that the sky is always red, but I'll be wrong.

The may also fit the criteria, but they weren't recognized. They were treasonous, slaving, impatient, and treacherous.

[Mormak]

No i am pointing out by one classification of "legitimacy" of state, they fit the criteria.

There is at least to my own perspective not such a thing as a "wrong" opinion, plenty of ill informed and ones i disagree with but i would never use blanket such as "wrong" that's me though.

I would argue theres "wrong" opinions. I could have the opinion that the sky is always red, but I'll be wrong.

The may also fit the criteria, but they weren't recognized. They were treasonous, slaving, impatient, and treacherous.

The sky is always red on Mars

Recognition or nonrecognition of the State doesn't make them any less fitting of the criteria for legitimacy which was the point.

[Pandeeria]

I would argue theres "wrong" opinions. I could have the opinion that the sky is always red, but I'll be wrong.

The may also fit the criteria, but they weren't recognized. They were treasonous, slaving, impatient, and treacherous.

The sky is always red on Mars

Recognition or nonrecognition of the State doesn't make them any less fitting of the criteria for legitimacy which was the point.

No, they illegally broke away and therefore were illegitimate.

[Mormak]

The sky is always red on Mars

Recognition or nonrecognition of the State doesn't make them any less fitting of the criteria for legitimacy which was the point.

No, they illegally broke away and therefore were illegitimate.

Depends on if you view the compact as a "now and forever" type of deal i suppose, They obviously didn't.

So "Legality" Like much everything else is perspective.

So Legitimate, Illegitimate, perspective. I can point out though that recognition as a State isn't a perquisite for being a "Legitimate" State. Furthermore there were several indicators that recognition was granted although under different labels: Prisoner and Officer Exchanges, Davis being treated like a head of state, etc.

Federal forces changing the names to suit their delusions doesn't change the practices they were engaging were designed and carried out by Nations at war and not a mere insurgence or "rebellion".

[Pandeeria]

No, they illegally broke away and therefore were illegitimate.

Depends on if you view the compact as a "now and forever" type of deal i suppose, They obviously didn't.

So "Legality" Like much everything else is perspective.

So Legitimate, Illegitimate, perspective. I can point out though that recognition as a State isn't a perquisite for being a "Legitimate" State. Furthermore there were several indicators that recognition was granted although under different labels: Prisoner and Officer Exchanges, Davis being treated like a head of state, etc.

Federal forces changing the names to suit their delusions doesn't change the practices they were engaging were designed and carried out by Nations at war and not a mere insurgence or "rebellion".

Recognition is a perquisite.

The US didn't recognize them because they illegally and illegitimately broke away.

If I illegally stole thousands of dollars from you, I illegitimately did it.

They illegally broke away and therefore weren't legit.

[Mormak]

Depends on if you view the compact as a "now and forever" type of deal i suppose, They obviously didn't.

So "Legality" Like much everything else is perspective.

So Legitimate, Illegitimate, perspective. I can point out though that recognition as a State isn't a perquisite for being a "Legitimate" State. Furthermore there were several indicators that recognition was granted although under different labels: Prisoner and Officer Exchanges, Davis being treated like a head of state, etc.

Federal forces changing the names to suit their delusions doesn't change the practices they were engaging were designed and carried out by Nations at war and not a mere insurgence or "rebellion".

Recognition is a perquisite.

The US didn't recognize them because they illegally and illegitimately broke away.

If I illegally stole thousands of dollars from you, I illegitimately did it.

They illegally broke away and therefore weren't legit.

Not according to all theories i have read on legitimacy of statehood, nor is stated as such by the law both past or current. Israel does not recogniz Palestine as a state, yet the UN does.

They didn't recognize them yet they traded prisoners, money and resources with them, they didn't recognize them yet their soldiers were given legitimate military tribunals, they didn't recognize them yet Davis was never charged with a crime.The legal precedent for secession did not and does not exist, therefore it technically is not unlawful for a proposed motion to be carried for that and if adopted as it was under them. Also what is with personal analogues being used by adamants on the nation state level?

Got to say this is getting dull, its basically devolved "They weren't legitimate", "They were" back and forth.

[Dyakovo]

No, they illegally broke away and therefore were illegitimate.

Depends on if you view the compact as a "now and forever" type of deal i suppose, They obviously didn't.

They were wrong.

[Vestr-Norig]

No, I do not. It is a symbol that represents the South, and should be treated as such. The Southerners should be proud to hoist the Confederate flag, not be looked down on for it.

[Mormak]

Depends on if you view the compact as a "now and forever" type of deal i suppose, They obviously didn't./quote]
They were wrong.

Did history prove their movement defeated? Yes.

Were they wrong? Opinion, They surely didn't view it as "wrong".

[Dyakovo]

They were wrong.

Did history prove their movement defeated? Yes.

Were they wrong? Opinion, They surely didn't view it as "wrong".

Them not recognizing reality doesn't change it.