# Why do people still parade the Confederate Flag around? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 23, 2001, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907 "2001-06-23T20:23:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2001, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/61 "2001-06-26T05:10:53Z")
MysterEcks wrote: > [@](#): > > **Alessan** said: > > > [@](#): > > > > Tracer - not quite. The 13 Colonies ere just that - colonies - and not equal members of the United Kingdom. > > I can’t see how that changes the treasonousness (is that a word?) from the British point of view of then-British subjects on then-British territory attempting to get rid of the British government. This isn’t materially different from the attempted secession four score and four years later–treason, however defined, is in the act rather than in the rationale. With one difference. Under British law, “treason” was pretty much whatever the King said was treason. The U.S. Consitution, on the other hand, placed strict limits on what could qualify as treason, in Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” When the South seceded, they were not the “Enemies” of the U.S.; they were – in the minds of the North – still **part of** the U.S… The act of declaring secession, in and of itself, **cannot** be considered treason under the definition given in Article III, Section 3. The Southern states did not actually commit any act that would qualify as treason until one of these States opened fire on Fort Sumter. ---
**Author:** ![Neon\_Frying\_Pan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/dfb087/32.png) [@Neon\_Frying\_Pan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neon_Frying_Pan)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2001, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/62 "2001-06-26T07:15:05Z")
Direct answer to the Post Headliner: Because they’re nuts. All of them, steeped in twisted history, distorted family and community pride and fail to recognize that not only were they traitors to the Union, but pawns by Southern Business which made their living off of slave labor. I have no use for a traitors flag to be flying anywhere in the US today. I still find some rednecks determined to refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, like it was all the North’s fault, though I have not spotted many Stars and Bars around, in the back windows of pickup trucks within the last ten years or so. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2001, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/63 "2001-06-26T18:03:44Z")
All this talk about being “traitors to the Union” neglects the strong feeling of _State loyalty_ many Americans felt at the time of the Civil War. As far as General Lee was concerned, for example, he wasn’t terribly thrilled about the idea of secession, but when it happened, he stuck by his State and fought as a loyal soldier of _Virginia_. Near the end of the War, in fact, Georgia considered seceding from the _Confederacy_ and becoming an independent nation. So what’s my point? My point is, if your State decided to secede from the Union, you were **forced** to become either a traitor to the Union or a traitor to your State, and at the time, State loyalty in many people’s minds came first. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/64 "2001-06-27T05:16:37Z")
**tracer** wrote: > [@](#): > > With one difference. **Under British law, “treason” was pretty much whatever the King said was treason.** The U.S. Consitution, on the other hand, placed strict limits on what could qualify as treason, in Article III, Section 3: > > “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” Actually, that’s not the case, for two reasons. First, by the time of the American Revolution, the King had very limited powers of legislation under the prerogative - he could not legislate under the prerogative at all in the U.K., nor in colonies which had representative assemblies. Therefore, the King could not “pretty much” say what was treason - it depended on statutes passed by Parliament and the colonial legislatures. Second, Parliament had in fact enacted statutes defining the offence of treason. In 1351, Parliament enacted 25 Edward III, st. 5 c. 2, commonly called the _Treason Act 1351._ It’s been amended from time to time over the intervening centuries, but remains in force today in the U.K. as the basic statutory definition of treason. King George III couldn’t have changed it by his own powers if he had tried. The relevant portions of the _Treason Act 1351_define treason as either levying war on Her Majesty within her realm, or assisting Her Majesty’s enemies to levy war against Her Majesty, either within or without Her Majesty’s realm. By an amendment enacted in 1695, Parliament provided that two witnesses are necessary to prove the offence of treason: _Treason Act, 1695_ 7 and 8 William III, c. 3. It appears likely that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution decided to entrench these British principles respecting treason in the Constitution, much as the Bill of Rights entrenches other principles of the British law. **ACLU Boy** wrote: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally posted by tracer > > jimpatro wrote: > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > The Confederate states were traitors and enemies of the United States of America. > > > > secession = traitor ? > > > > Then I guess the original 13 States were all traitors of Great Britain when they openly declared their independence in 1776, too. > > From the English perspective, they most certainly were. Well, I’m not so sure about that. It would depend on the particular stage of the Revolution, and the actions of the particular individual. To start with, notwithstanding the “lives, fortunes and sacred honour” stuff, merely signing the Declaration of Independence wouldn’t be treason - treason was limited to acts of war, and voting for independence is not an act of war, in and of itself. As well, I don’t think that those revolutionaries who engaged in acts of war against the British would be committing treason, from the perspective of the English courts. As mentioned earlier, the relevant portion of the English _Treason Act, 1351_defines treason as levying war on His Majesty within his realm, or assisting the enemies of His Majesty to levy war against him, either within or without his realm. The English courts have given a relatively narrow interpretation to the word “realm” - at the time of the U.S. Revolution, it meant England, Wales, and Scotland. It did not include the Channel Islands, Man, or overseas colonies. So, the act of rebellion in the American colonies would not appear to be treason from the perspective of the English courts - i.e., if a colonial rebel had been found in England he could not have been tried for treason in the English courts, because he had not engaged in war against His Majesty in His Majesty’s realm, the United Kingdom. The situation would have changed as soon as the French got involved (how often do you hear that sentence in history?). Once the American rebels started co-operating with the French to levy war against the British, the fact that the acts of war were not committed in the realm would be irrelevant - co-operating with His Majesty’s enemies to wage war against His Majesty would be treason, even in the colonies. So, a rebel who did that could be tried for treason in the English courts. Now, that’s all from the perspective of the English. The situation would likely have been different under colonial law, if the rebellion had been crushed and say, the colony of Virginia put Washington on trial. Under British colonial law, English laws were automatically inherited by a colony, so the the _Treason Act, 1351_would have been in force in Virginia, as a statute of that colony, and “realm” in that context likely would have meant the colony of Virginia. So under Virginia law, Washington likely could have been tried as a traitor for levying war against His Majesty in Virginia. ---
**Author:** ![MysterEcks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@MysterEcks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysterEcks)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/65 "2001-06-27T06:24:26Z")
**tracer** said: > [@](#): > > The Southern states did not actually commit any act that would qualify as treason until one of these States opened fire on Fort Sumter. I was unclear–my fault for trying to be literary. I used the term “attempted secession” as meaning the Civil War as a whole, not merely the acts of the states declaring themselves no longer part of the Union. (By the way…in terms of acts of war, the first was really firing on the supply ship \*Star of the West,\*which Buchanan dispatched to resupply Sumter. The ship turned back, Buchanan decided it was easier to leave the problem to his successor, and Lincoln didn’t press the issue.) ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/66 "2001-06-27T07:10:28Z")
What exactly is wrong with treason? It is simply committing an act of war where whom your warring against would not like you to be. Its not really different from any other act of war. Both the civil war and the American revolution were acts of treason. That means nothing except the fact that the people they were warring against passed a law against that act calling it treason. **ITR champion people** do notice it more when their region is under attack. I have never heard someone from elsewhere in the country complain about this. Attacks on the south from bigots are just one of the stereotypes that people have. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/67 "2001-06-27T13:46:54Z")
> [@](#): > > As well, I don’t think that those revolutionaries who engaged in acts of war against the British would be committing treason, from the perspective of the English courts. I dunno. Patrick Henry (who was a renowned lawyer) included this line in his “Give me liberty or give me death” speech: > [@](#): > > If this be treason, then make the most of it. And Ben Franklin said: > [@](#): > > We must all hang together, or surely we shall all hang separately. > > (referring to the punishment levied for treason) And since we’ve gone off on a legalistic tangent, what “act of war” did the state of Virginia commit before she was invaded (first battle of Bull Run)? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/68 "2001-06-27T13:59:14Z")
Secession. ---
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/69 "2001-06-27T15:55:27Z")
So, **Minty** , if Quebec secedes from Canada, would that then be an act of war? Would the Grand Army of Saskatchewon then be justified in devising an anaconda stragety to bring Quebec back into the fold? Hoo-boy. This is turning into a train-wreck. Anybody want a veggie-burger? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/70 "2001-06-27T17:04:43Z")
> [@](#): > > if Quebec secedes from Canada, would that then be an act of war? Secession from a voluntarily-entered union without the consent of the rest of the nation is an act of war. When states or territories decide to join the United States, they surrender any claims they once had to unfettered sovereignty. They may not reclaim that complete sovereignty without the consent of the United States as a whole. Matter of fact, we already had a little argument over precisely this principle, 'round about 140 years ago. I seem to recall the secessionists lost the debate rather decisively. Of course, whether the rest of Canada cared enough about retaining Quebec to go to war over it would be entirely up to them. I suspect their basic reaction would be a heart-felt “Good riddance!” And veggie burgers? Feh! Make mine a chopped-brisket sandwich with plenty of jalapenos on the side. And a Dr. Pepper. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/71 "2001-06-27T17:27:52Z")
**minty green** wrote: > [@](#): > > When states or territories decide to join the United States, they surrender any claims they once had to unfettered sovereignty. They may not reclaim that complete sovereignty without the consent of the United States as a whole. That’s odd. I don’t see any language like that in my copy of the Constitution. Where are you reading that, **minty**? > [@](#): > > Matter of fact, we already had a little argument over precisely this principle, 'round about 140 years ago. I seem to recall the secessionists lost the debate rather decisively. Might makes right, I guess. So then if I assemble an army that claims the Constitution says that only poodles may be elected to Congress, and then we win the ensuing war, then does that prove that we were correct? ---
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/72 "2001-06-27T17:30:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Secession from a voluntarily-entered union without the consent of the rest of the nation is an act of war.** IANAL, so I’m not as familiar with these legalities as I assume you are. Is your statement based on your own experience, your personal opinion, or from a detailed reading of the constitution? I just gave it a quick read and don’t see anywhere that it says a state cannot decide to call it quits. Is there another source for this? > [@](#): > > \*\*And veggie burgers? Feh! Make mine a chopped-brisket sandwich with plenty of jalapenos on the side. And a Dr. Pepper. \*\* The veggie-burger thing seemed appropriate in light of this thread’s similarities (jerking knees, bizarre posts, and other curiosities) to **Scylla’s** BBQ Pit Veganinanitarianism thread. As for me, I’ll have a pulled pork shoulder bbq sandwich with slaw, Wicker’s sauce, beans, and sweet tea. Yum. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/73 "2001-06-27T17:49:53Z")
I was going to settle this entire question with a dazzling stroke of logic, but then some cocoanut macaroons appeared in the kitchen and hold a superior claim on my attention. Plus the movers are bound to show up any minute with my Kentucky flag… ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/74 "2001-06-27T19:19:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ivorybill \* > Is your statement based on your own experience, your personal opinion, or from a detailed reading of the constitution? I just gave it a quick read and don’t see anywhere that it says a state cannot decide to call it quits. The legality of secession is quite well settled. To wit, it ain’t legal. [_State of Texas v. White_](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=74&page=700), 74 U.S. 700 (1868). It’s fascinating reading, and I highly recommended it to anyone who cares about this subject. The discussion of secession begins at the bottom of page 719. (Findlaw denotes page breaks by bracketing the numbers in green type. The opinion itself starts about 1/3 of the way down the page.) So sayeth the Supreme Court: > [@](#): > > The Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union, as a State, on the 27th of December, 1845. By this act the new State, and the people of the new State, were invested with all the rights, and became subject to all the responsibilities and duties of the original States under the Constitution. > > From the date of admission, until 1861, the State was represented in the Congress of the United States by her senators and representatives, and her relations as a member of the Union remained unimpaired. In that year, acting upon the theory that the rights of a State under the Constitution might be renounced, and her obligations thrown off at pleasure, Texas undertook to sever the bond thus formed, and to break up her constitutional relations with the United States. . . . > [@](#): > > The position thus assumed could only be maintained by arms, and Texas accordingly took part, with the other Confederate States, in the war of the rebellion, which these events made inevitable. During the whole of that war there was no governor, or judge, or any other State officer in Texas, who recognized the National authority. Nor was any officer of the United States permitted to exercise any authority whatever under the National government within the limits of the State, except under the immediate protection of the National military forces. > > Did Texas, in consecuence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union? . . . > [@](#): > > And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,’ and that ‘without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.’ Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. 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. Any questions? ---
**Author:** ![Ivorybill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ee59a6/32.png) [@Ivorybill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ivorybill)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/75 "2001-06-27T19:57:56Z")
Yea, I do have a question: you gonna have fries or chips with that sandwich? (d&r) Seriously, thanks for the case law. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/76 "2001-06-27T20:36:58Z")
Personally, I prefer the serrano & poblano spinach they’ve got over at Stubb’s BBQ here in Austin. (Awesome sandwiches, so-so platters.) But barring that, I’ll go with the fries. And you’re quite welcome for the cite. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/77 "2001-06-27T20:58:31Z")
> [@](#): > > Any questions? Just one: Do you think a Supreme Court comprised of poodles would find my poodle rebellion constitutional? Small wonder, then, that the Supreme Court after the Civil War adopted the Union interpretation of the Constitution. I note that the Court, though it flashes “the Constitution” like a saber in that opinion, did not seem to find any actual language _in the Constitution itself_ to support its position. You know, something simple like “perpetual union” or “indissoluble union” would have done the trick. My own view (in the absence of any language in the Constitution like “perpetual” or “indissoluble”) is that the former colonies, who had just fought a bloody war against one central authority, would not have intentionally turned around and bound themselves to another unless they thought they had the option to withdraw. And in fact, if the words “perpetual” or “indissoluble” had been used, I seriously doubt that the Constitution would have ever been ratified. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/78 "2001-06-27T21:06:11Z")
Stubb’s Rules!! Speaking of ruling or…er, secession. Secession is an act of war in that you can’t expect the ruling state to just sit back and say “Whatever”. Essentially treason is a person or persons acting against the state of which they are a citizen. Native born or naturalized. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/79 "2001-06-27T21:07:07Z")
So you disagree with the Supreme Court? :shrug: No skin off my nose. But that still ain’t gonna change the illegality of secession. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2001, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907/80 "2001-06-27T21:26:15Z")
By the way, spoke-, I’d also point out that _you_ cannot point to any language in the Constitution that says states can withdraw at will. This is just one of those matters where the Constitution is silent. Considering the occasional secessionist threats of the Southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention, that silence was probably quite intentional. Yet in _White_, the Supreme Court had to decide one way or another, so it did. And now that it’s done so, that settles the matter, barring a constitutional amendment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-parade-the-confederate-flag-around/69907.md?page=5)