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 23 of 183 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373123 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 1824

Thread: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

  1. #221
    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 Goshin View Post
    Actually those divides remain, to a large degree, to this day. The South is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented regions in the country. In a time when most stereotypes are viewed with great disfavor, it remains acceptible to stereotype Southerners as ignorant racist hicks.
    .
    And the East Coast is viewed as elitist and the Midwest is viewed as boring/simple and the West Coast is viewed as shallow. The South doesn't have the monopoly on that although it seems like the south might take it more personally than the rest of us do.

  2. #222
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Let's go to Mississippi!
    In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

    Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
    Are we really going to have this argument, Harry?

    That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

    The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

    The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

    The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

    It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

    It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

    It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

    It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

    It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

    It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

    It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

    It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

    It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

    It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

    It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

    It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

    It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

    Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

    Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.
    That was the entire document and it was entirely about slavery (albeit Mississippi was far less eloquent than Georgia - not much has changed eh?).

    South Carolina
    The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
    In the first line. Wow, Harry, they didn't **** about religion. They didn't **** about culture. They said that their rights to hold slaves was infringed upon and so they were leaving. That's exactly what that paragraph says, nothing more, nothing less.

    In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire embracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the government of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colonies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, "that they are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."
    Here they say we are supposed to be free and independent and able to levy war, but they haven't gotten to why (well besides the first paragraph). Then for a bit it talks about the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. Until, finally, they get to their grievances:

    In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

    The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
    Oh look, it's about slavery! Who would have guessed? Oh my!

    The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
    Entirely about slaves, escaped slaves, and transportation of slaves.

    The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

    These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

    We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
    Entirely grievances about slaves.

    For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

    This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

    On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

    The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

    Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

    We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
    Did anyone see anything in there not related to slavery?

  3. #223
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Last one, Texas:

    The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* [emphasis in the original], the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

    The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

    Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
    So, I take away from this that they signed into the Constitution (and the reasons why) but they are dissolving from the Union. Why? Oh, slavery. Again: "She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits". Yes, that's what they consider to be "blessings". Slavery. Don't be confused when they say positive words referring to the country - they are referring to slavery every time.

    The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.
    Texas is pissed because they can't own slaves in any new western territories.

    By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

    The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
    Holy ****! I found a grievance that is not related to slaves - but it is related to killing "savages", but whatever. Still, look at that! I did it! Apparently Texas was also pissed because the US did not protect them adequately from the "savages" on their border.

    These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

    When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

    The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.
    Ah ****, back to slavery.

    Ok, there is more but I am done reading it. Can we call this debate over whether the Civil War was fought over slavery or not over? Thanks.

  4. #224
    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 teamosil View Post
    Well, unfortunately it is much broader than the KKK and whatnot. For example, there are many cities in the south that still to this day take out the confederate flag and fly it on city buildings specifically on Martin Luther King day and not other days. I think Virginia just stopped doing that on the state capitol maybe 5 years ago or so and a number of cities still do it. The only way that makes a lick of sense is if they are flying it as a symbol of their feelings towards black people, right?
    I've never heard of the practice and I live as deep south as it gets. Some cities do have a homogenous culture, but again, if they are misusing Dixie that isn't an indictment of what it means to most southerners.



    That seems like quite a leap to assume that they are judging your culture.
    No it isn't. When I have some jackass telling me what a southern symbol means and it doesn't line up to the actual meaning it is a cultural judgement. Telling me Dixie equals racism would be like me telling someone of a different culture that my interpretation of their symbols or whatever is right.
    It isn't the flag of the modern southern states, it's the flag from the confederacy. A person can, and in fact most people do, like the south, but consider the confederacy to have been evil.
    And many people in the US do not want a federalized, centralized government Genocide was committed against the native americans in many northern states, a good number consider that evil. Glad to see that now what we "consider" has more meaning now than the truth.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #225
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    I read that they celebrate another person on MLK day and that is why they fly the flag on that particular day. Still, an odd choice, in my opinion.

    Hope to Fly Flag
    Lexington, Virginia is causing a storm of controversy over the way it is celebrating Lee-Jackson Day. The local Sons of Confederate Veterans chapter, asked the city to put up Confederate flags on Monday prior to Lee-Jackson Day and leave them up until next Monday -- Martin Luther King Jr. Day.
    Ah, so it is not the same day but the week before or something of that nature.

  6. #226
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    All apologies, it appears I killed this thread with the introduction of facts and logic.

  7. #227
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Quote Originally Posted by 99percenter View Post
    ACtually they did both. Secession was not allowed in our constitution and therefore not legal.
    Prove it... (again) lol.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  8. #228
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    why does it matter is it is a symbol of treason?

    are people looking for yet another derogatory name to call southerners or something?

  9. #229
    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 Thrilla View Post
    why does it matter is it is a symbol of treason?

    are people looking for yet another derogatory name to call southerners or something?
    Why does anything matter? It's just a question. Do you have an answer?

  10. #230
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,880
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

    Quote Originally Posted by theplaydrive View Post
    There are several threads on the Confederate flag that dance around this question.

    Many people, usually, if not always, conservatives, argue in favor of the Confederate flag and the desire to fly it or place it within the public domain. Oftentimes, they refer to it as if it is merely an innocent symbol of United States history, a symbol of state's rights, a symbol of fighting against far reaching federal government and sometimes even a symbol of patriotism.

    However, these arguments, to me, seem like revisionist nonsense. The Confederate flag represents treason. It was the flag of people whose actions were not based in love of their country, but in a decision to give up on their country and abandon it in order to form a new one. It was a flag flown by those who decided that they no longer wished to be a part of the United States and that they no longer wished to solve their problems while remaining Americans.

    Consequently, it seems obvious to me that the Confederate flag is not one that would be flown proudly by Americans, but one that would be flown proudly by those who no longer wish to be Americans. For this reason, it seems ridiculous to allow such a flag to be present on anything belonging to or issued by the state as it represents those who want to disassociate themselves from the state. It also seems ridiculous for anyone who considers themselves a patriot to fly the flag of people who abandoned their patriotism. Am I right about all of this? If not, why not?
    I don't believe it to be a symbol of treason.

    Many argue that it was illegal for the states to try and seceed from the Union. They even try to use the Constitution for this basis saying that there is nothing in it that allows a state to seceed. Well, they're right that it doesn't. Directly. However the Constitution is about the United States, not the United Nation.

    When the Constitution was formed it was meant to be a general charter that all of the states would agree to. Each one basically being considered its own mini-country. They did this so that they could help protect each other in case of an invasion from stronger countries. Such as Britain, Spain etc etc. The FF's knew that if they stood apart then they could fall quite easily to any number of countries that wanted new lands and resources. So they agreed to band together. All of them agreeing to allow one central government that would take care of any disputes from foriegn countries and even allowing it to settle disputes between the states themselves. That was the original reason for the Constitution. To provide for the common welfare of the states. However each state was allowed to control what happen inside each states own borders. Before the Civil War happened the Constitution was a limit on the Federal government. Not on the States. After the Civil War however the Constitution started being applied to State governments also. Basically the Federal government got a huge boost in power. It got an even bigger boost when the Supreme Court started ruling that the various amendments in the Bill of Rights also applied to the States and not just the Federal Government as was originally intended. The amendment that allowed that to happen came about as a direct result of the Civil War. Originally the only amendments that applied to the states was the 9th and 10th. Indeed it could be argued that under the 10th Amendment the States had a right to seceed. As everything was originally meant to be applied before the Civil War that is. Now however, despite the 9th and 10th amendments being talked about those two amendments seem to be largely ignored by the Federal Government.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Posting Permissions

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