View Poll Results: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

Voters
98. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    36 36.73%
  • No

    56 57.14%
  • I don't know.

    6 6.12%
Page 139 of 183 FirstFirst ... 3989129137138139140141149 ... LastLast
Results 1,381 to 1,390 of 1824

Thread: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

  1. #1381
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Yes, Texas v. White. So I've heard. And what section and clause did the court cite in finding that the federal government was delegated the power to restrict the withdrawal of states from the union? Anyone? Bueller...?
    It was a link, for a reason.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  2. #1382
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Yes, Texas v. White. So I've heard. And what section and clause did the court cite in finding that the federal government was delegated the power to restrict the withdrawal of states from the union? Anyone? Bueller...?
    This is the argument. Feel free to critique it. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 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." [n12] 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. [p726] 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. PS Sorry for no paragraph breaks!
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  3. #1383
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,751

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Sorry for the long posts. There's just a lot to respond to.

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    In 1869!! Goddamn! Why is it so hard for you get a grip on that?!?

    If you're right and it was so ****ing obvious that secession was un-constitutional, the decision would have been made when New England attempted to secede in 1804.
    Who said the Supreme Court has to rule on every single possible issue of whether an action is constitutionally valid?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    This coming from a guy who had to call me a racist?
    I don't think you understand. Resorting to flaming during a debate usually means that the flamer is out of talking points and thus feels the need to personally attack his or her opponent. And no, calling your argument racist is not the same thing, whether you like that or not. If I denounce something on the grounds that it's racist, that's fundamentally different than calling someone a moron for what they say and not explaining why their argument is bad. You have consistently done the latter.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Yes, I am giving up on you. All you've done is flame. As far as spin goes, that is all you have provided. I have made every attempt to be civil and give you room for debate but all I get is "nuh-uh" "south bad". Sorry, there are better uses of my intellect than getting into a pissing contest with someone who wants to remain half informed.
    Well then. I accept your surrender.

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    This is correct. The states reserved nearly all police powers to themselves when they established their compact. They did give their federal government the power to punish piracy and treason, for example. Other than those few exceptions, the federal government was delegated no police powers.
    Do you know the main reason the Constitution was created in the first place?

    Yes, and if my uncle had tits, he'd be my aunt.
    Careful, that's quotable.

    You miss my point, though. What exactly does the Constitution prohibit states from doing, other than a few restrictions at the end of Article I?

    This is correct. The federal government may only exercise its delegated powers. It was never delegated any power to restrict exit from the federation, which, based on the 10th amendment, implies that this power was reserved by the states.
    Again, because the Constitution doesn't require states to outlaw murder and arson, they can make them legal. At least, by your logic, that's what could happen.

    No kidding? You mean the federal government decided that secession was illegal? That's a shocker.
    You question the authority of the Supreme Court? On what grounds?

    And what section and clause did they cite to support their opinion?
    Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    -The Articles of Confederation (which, though not directly a part of the Constitution, was its predecessor, and goes into greater length about states' joining the US)
    -The responsibility of every state to provide for a republican form of government (with the implication that said government can't just bail out when it wants)
    -The power of Congress to suppress insurrections

    Interestingly, they could have entertained the "necessary and proper" clause but didn't feel that they needed to go that far.

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    That you must blatantly make up arguments for and distort the arguments of the other side illustrates that you understand the legitimacy of our arguments. If our actual arguments were so stupid, you would have written them down so that others could see the actual comparison to your own arguments are marvel at the stupidity ours when placed against your own. You chose to make up and grossly simplify arguments instead, but rather than reaching down to your level and doing the same to you, I'm just going to re-post our actual arguments since I'm confident that they stand better against your actual ones - without manipulation.

    Actual arguments made by us:

    1. The Supreme Court ruled secession illegal in Texas v. White and declared that the Confederacy never existed as an independent nation.
    2. The Supreme Court ruled the Confederacy was treasonous in Sprott v. United States.
    3. The Supreme Court ruled the Confederacy an illegal organization in Williams v. Bruffy.
    4. President Lincoln, Chief Justice Chase and others referred to Confederate actions as treason.
    5. Lincoln and others referred to the war as a "civil war" not as a war between nations illustrating their belief that the Confederacy was not a separate nation.
    6. The majority of reasons for the Civil War, if not slavery itself, revolved around slavery. These issues include the economy, state's rights, increasing power of federal government and Lincoln's election.
    7. Because of the nature of property, the rightful "owner" of Ft. Sumter in dependent upon which side you sympathize with. However, because the Confederacy fired the first shots, they were the aggressor and thus began the Civil War.

    Re-Post of Your Counter Arguments as You Presented them:

    - The north engaged in unfair trade practices and the location of the railroads
    - The south tried to use diplomacy
    - The slavery issue came up
    - The south seceeded because of all factors combined
    - The north occupied territory
    - The south issued a warning and attacked but probably should have furthered diplomacy
    - Both sides were wrong

    I think our arguments do quite well against yours when represented honestly.
    This. A hundred times this.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  4. #1384
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    This is the argument. Feel free to critique it. The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
    That is an interesting interpretation. I had to think about it for a bit but here is an alternate take on it; True the preamble does state the goal of a perfect union but if we note there are conditions attached, such as ensuring the general welfare, providing for the common defense, etc. In my particular opinion the economic abuses by northern interests not including slavery did violate their part of the compact.

    There were other writings, such as the D.O.I. that stated to paraphrase that once a government becomes abusive towards the ends of But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government, by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still all powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 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." [n12] 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. [p726] 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. PS Sorry for no paragraph breaks!
    I was about to make this point. LOL. Paragraph breaks would have interrupted the necessary flow of your argument, no worries on that. I think to understand the southern position one must take the sum total of all founding writings into account, i.e. The "perfect union" argument in the preamble is only as good as all sides holding up their end of the contract, thus the south drew from the writings of the declaration for the intent of the union to make the argument that the nation was not working for all at the time. This point unfortunately gets glossed over by people who cannot break away from the slavery arguments.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #1385
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1059970595]
    That is an interesting interpretation. I had to think about it for a bit but here is an alternate take on it; True the preamble does state the goal of a perfect union but if we note there are conditions attached, such as ensuring the general welfare, providing for the common defense, etc. In my particular opinion the economic abuses by northern interests not including slavery did violate their part of the compact. I was about to make this point. LOL. Paragraph breaks would have interrupted the necessary flow of your argument, no worries on that. I think to understand the southern position one must take the sum total of all founding writings into account, i.e. The "perfect union" argument in the preamble is only as good as all sides holding up their end of the contract, thus the south drew from the writings of the declaration for the intent of the union to make the argument that the nation was not working for all at the time. This point unfortunately gets glossed over by people who cannot break away from the slavery arguments.
    FYI this is a quote from the court case, not my words.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  6. #1386
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    FYI this is a quote from the court case, not my words.
    Gotcha. Historically there have been some pretty tortured court decsions and writings.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #1387
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    I have already debunked that so people continuing to bring up is a waste of time. Do what you will though.

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive
    1. The Supreme Court ruled secession illegal in Texas v. White and declared that the Confederacy never existed as an independent nation.
    I debunked this.

    2. The Supreme Court ruled the Confederacy was treasonous in Sprott v. United States.
    If I'm not mistaken they used the necessary and proper clause. The necessary and proper clause has to do with the ability to carry out the enumerated powers while not violating any such powers. Meaning you can't violate the powers to carry out the powers. Since there is no ability given to the federal government to stop the secession the case falls short and the act would therefore be in violation of the necessary and proper clause. Sadly, you have another debunked case.



    3. The Supreme Court ruled the Confederacy an illegal organization in Williams v. Bruffy.
    You will have to defend the ruling in which you failed to do when it was debunked already

    4. President Lincoln, Chief Justice Chase and others referred to Confederate actions as treason.
    Chief Justice Chase changed his mind on that showing his lack of creditability on the subject as shown in this thread. That is debunked. As for Lincoln, his opinion means nothing since he decided to arrest senators which btw is an act of treason.

    5. Lincoln and others referred to the war as a "civil war" not as a war between nations illustrating their belief that the Confederacy was not a separate nation.
    They were already debunked here.

    6. The majority of reasons for the Civil War, if not slavery itself, revolved around slavery. These issues include the economy, state's rights, increasing power of federal government and Lincoln's election.
    Already debunked.

    7. Because of the nature of property, the rightful "owner" of Ft. Sumter in dependent upon which side you sympathize with. However, because the Confederacy fired the first shots, they were the aggressor and thus began the Civil War.
    Already has been debunked.


    Your entire case seems to have been debunked. /shrug. Maybe you should admit it?

  8. #1388
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,853

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Your line of 'reasoning' was already 'debunked' too.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #1389
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I debunked this. [...] Sadly, you have another debunked case.[...]You will have to defend the ruling in which you failed to do when it was debunked already
    Debunked what? You gave your opinion that Supreme Court was wrong. Pro-life people do the same thing for Roe v. Wade everyday. The Supreme Court ruled abortion legal and it ruled secession illegal. No amount of opining makes secession legal. The Court already made its decision.

    Chief Justice Chase changed his mind on that showing his lack of creditability on the subject as shown in this thread. That is debunked. As for Lincoln, his opinion means nothing since he decided to arrest senators which btw is an act of treason.
    You dismiss what you don't like. This is noted.

    They were already debunked here. [...] Already debunked. [...] Already has been debunked.
    This is the sum of your argument:

    1. "I disagree with the Supreme Court. Therefore, secession is legal." That's not how it works. If you disagree with the Supreme Court, then you disagree on whether it should be legal. But the SC already declared it illegal, so I'm not sure what you think you're debunking.

    2. If I say the word "debunked", people will believe me. That's also not how it works.

    The word you're looking for is "disagree". You disagree with the Supreme Court rulings. You disagree with Chase and Lincoln. You disagree that most issues in the Civil War revolved around slavery. When you accept this, we might be able to have a conversation, but at this point, you've just become a parrot without substance.


    *Side Note: The quotes by Chase and Lincoln were used by me only to show that some in the Union viewed the Confederacy as treasonous, they were not used as evidence for treason (the SC rulings did that on their own), so you can't really "debunk" those since their existence proves exactly what they were meant to prove which is that they exist.

  10. #1390
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Your line of 'reasoning' was already 'debunked' too.
    The arrogance of these people is unmet. The idea that one can say "debunked" and have it be so is laughable. Almost as laughable as believing one can say, "This is my land" and have it be so.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •