- This topic has 4 voices and 20 replies.
-
Posts
-
Saw this interesting article today about how Virginia and Minnesota are still arguing over who has rights to a Virginia's Regiments battle flag captured by a Minnesota regiment at Gettysburg. My view-Minnesota ha dibs as they took it fair and square in battle. The guy that took it even won the MoH for the act.
That is an interesting story, and it seems right that Minnesota would be able to keep it. Still, almost by default I disagree with whatever comes out of the mind of Gov. Mark Dayton, so I can't say right away that his refusal to do the loan was a good thing. 😉
The problem with a loan of an item associated with strong feelings is you never know if the loaned item will ever be returned. I say they took it on the battlefield and it is now theirs to decide what happens to it. If Virginia wants it back, they should have won the war. They did not and the verdict of the battlefield stands.
Yes, I understand that is a danger, but I would have a hard time believing that it would occur between two states. Between two nations it is much more likely, and because international law is sometimes murky it might be hard to get back items that have been borrowed. However, in the U.S., one state could get a court to enforce its claim. Now, I suppose Virginia could be hoping that some court would agree with the findings that the law school students came up with and thereby nullify any contract between Virginia and Minnesota to lend the flag, but that could be risky. Would a state really want to project to the world that its run by people who make contracts in bad faith?
Would a state really want to project to the world that its run by people who make contracts in bad faith?
States do that all the time, or what do you call when the state government says ti will do one thing and then does another. An example is the highway they built on my grandfather's farm. It was not supposed to take any of the farmland but a neighbor was politically more powerful so they ended up taking 60 acres of our land for the highway to cross. If that is not breaking faith, what is?
I am thinking that states have enough resources that they could write the terms of the agreement in an enforceable contract. That makes it much harder to get around. As for your grandfather, I am guessing he didn't have the resources to protect his land, which is unfortunate. I hope that at the least the government compensated him for his loss. Does he still own the adjoining land (or is it still in your family)? When the government puts a road through land, that land obviously becomes more attractive to developers, hence raising the value.
Your grandfather should have got his shotgun out and explained it to the highway developers in a language that they could better understand.
The problem is that states are the arbiters of the law. As we have seen from recent executive conduct (PPACA implementation, IRS targeting, NSA scandal) the law apparently is whatever those charged with enforcing it says it is. We have also seen thr state grow less accountable through recent Supreme Court decisions, the two that spring immediately to mind are the magical transformation of the individual mandate from a penalty to a tax and the 2005 Kelo decision.What we are seeing is a breakdown of what we would consider the Rule of Law. Law is for lawyers and lawmakers anymore and not the individual, Property is yours so long as the state allows you to possess it. This is not just the case in the US, it is happening all over the Western world, corruption seems to be increasing rather than decreasing or remaining stable.I can completely understand Minnesota's reluctance to loan the flag to Virginia.
IMO to the winner goes to spoils. So I think that by the laws and customs of war the flag no longer belongs to Virginia.States are also supposed to return those wanted for trial in another state. (I was taught the term is extradition between nations and rendition between states.) But states have a long history of not honoring rendition requests, so I wouldn't count on Virginia keeping a promise to return it thinks is it's property.
IMO to the winner goes to spoils. So I think that by the laws and customs of war the flag no longer belongs to Virginia.
I agree with you 100% Daniel. I don't see how Virginia, the losers, have any claim on the battle flag. I also would not trust them to give it back after any loan period farther than I can throw them.
The ideal would be for Virginia to try and purchase it at some agreed upon value or agree to share it.
The ideal would be for Virginia to try and purchase it at some agreed upon value or agree to share it.
Do you think that spoils of war are so easily purchased back by the conquered?
Do you think that spoils of war are so easily purchased back by the conquered?
Keeping it only festers old wounds.
Keeping it only festers old wounds.
How so? How exactly is Virginia the wounded party here? It is not as if Virginia was not in a state of rebellion at the time of the flag's capture.
