• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?

Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?


  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.
Treason in the Constitution is levying war against the United States and forming a confederation. The Confederacy fired the first shots on Fort Sumter - therefore, they levied war against the United States while being members of the Union (and also formed a confederation).

In order for their actions to have NOT been treason, they would have to have been a separate country. In order for them to have been a separate country, they would have had to make themselves a separate country. They did not. They tried, but they failed. Declaration of independence is not independence. Independence must be be fought for and won. They declared, they fought and they lost. Consequently, they were and will always remain a failed insurrection - a treasonous confederation of states.

Oh so "occupying" a fort in the south wasn't enough to start a war? WHEN THE SOUTH TOLD THEM TO GET THE HELL OUT... that my friend is an invasion.
 
You shouldn't be happy with errors even if they work for you. And like I explained it was not treason.



I will fight bad rulings in the courts if I can. You would as well if you knew what was good for you. Sadly, I fear you don't have a clue.

You have nothing to fear. Relax. Calm down. My knowledge of history is extensive and my knowledge of reality is even broader.
 
Oh so "occupying" a fort in the south wasn't enough to start a war? WHEN THE SOUTH TOLD THEM TO GET THE HELL OUT... that my friend is an invasion.
They weren't "occupying" anything. It was a United States fort. Just because the Confederates said it was there's doesn't make it there's.

Declaring independence != independence. Independence must be fought for. The South fought for it, but they lost. Their actions against Fort Sumter were treason.
 
So you don't like his interpretation of the Constitution which makes him a dumbass. This is not a premise on which fruitful conversation can be had.

Does the welfare clause give power? Clearly not. Do you know why? Its not my interpretation, but common knowledge that the clause he referenced does not give power and proven by the founders themselves and the balance of power. If you want to support his claim I look forward to it. Until then, I'll see you around.
 
You have nothing to fear. Relax. Calm down. My knowledge of history is extensive and my knowledge of reality is even broader.

You sure have a great way to show it.
 
Does the welfare clause give power? Clearly not. Do you know why? Its not my interpretation, but common knowledge that the clause he referenced does not give power and proven by the founders themselves and the balance of power. If you want to support his claim I look forward to it. Until then, I'll see you around.

The welfare clearly provides Congress with the power to tax and spend. To say that the welfare clause "does not give power" is patently idiotic.
 
Does the welfare clause give power? Clearly not. Do you know why? Its not my interpretation, but common knowledge that the clause he referenced does not give power and proven by the founders themselves and the balance of power. If you want to support his claim I look forward to it. Until then, I'll see you around.
I agree with his interpretation - but we can scrap that interpretation if it makes you feel better and the end result is the same - the Confederate States committed treason.
 
The welfare clearly provides Congress with the power to tax and spend. To say that the welfare clause "does not give power" is patently idiotic.

Sorry, I spoke incorrectly. I meant to say it does NOT grant the government unlimited power to provide for the welfare of the people like the supreme court has ruled. Madison and the author of the constitution said no in Federalist 41.

By itself the words General Welfare has no authority so technically I wasn't wrong anyway, but felt I should correct the mistake I made there.
 
Last edited:
Oh so "occupying" a fort in the south wasn't enough to start a war? WHEN THE SOUTH TOLD THEM TO GET THE HELL OUT... that my friend is an invasion.

??? Ft. Sumter was a Federal Installation - property of the United States, so no occupation or invasion took place. Possession was established before S. Carolina voted for secession, so logically were they not seeking an armed conflict, they could have negotiated a time frame for withdrawal and offered a payment for the property.
 
I agree with his interpretation - but we can scrap that interpretation if it makes you feel better and the end result is the same - the Confederate States committed treason.

No, if you scrap it the act falls under the tenth and you loss the argument. And you need to explain your reasoning.
 
No, if you scrap it the act falls under the tenth and you loss the argument. And you need to explain your reasoning.
The tenth amendment doesn't do squat. Besides, I already explained my reasoning, but I'll help you out and re-post it.

Treason in the Constitution is levying war against the United States and forming a confederation. The Confederacy fired the first shots on Fort Sumter - therefore, they levied war against the United States while being members of the Union (and also formed a confederation).

In order for their actions to have NOT been treason, they would have to have been a separate country. In order for them to have been a separate country, they would have had to make themselves a separate country. They did not. They tried, but they failed. Declaration of independence is not independence. Independence must be be fought for and won. They declared, they fought and they lost. Consequently, they were and will always remain a failed insurrection - a treasonous confederation of states.
 
Sorry, I spoke incorrectly. I meant to say it does NOT grant the government unlimited power to provide for the welfare of the people like the supreme court has ruled. Madison and the author of the constitution said no in Federalist 41.

By itself the words General Welfare has no authority so technically I wasn't wrong anyway, but felt I should correct the mistake I made there.

I wanted to add this quote from a post I made last year on the very issue of the welfare clause but my time ran out..

ME said:
The term general welfare as in the "welfare clause" is describing the broad ends of the constitution i.e., justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and liberty, It is meant to enlarge the dominion of government beyond the enumeration itself, but not to give power. In federalist #41 madison was talking about what "General Welfare" meant and why it was included in the document. In his explaining he is describing the purposes of the enumerated powers and provide more specific meaning to the general purposes of the government.
 
The tenth amendment doesn't do squat. Besides, I already explained my reasoning, but I'll help you out and re-post it.

So you think an amendment does nothing but an introduction gives power? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Treason in the Constitution is levying war against the United States and forming a confederation. The Confederacy fired the first shots on Fort Sumter - therefore, they levied war against the United States while being members of the Union (and also formed a confederation).

In order for their actions to have NOT been treason, they would have to have been a separate country. In order for them to have been a separate country, they would have had to make themselves a separate country. They did not. They tried, but they failed. Declaration of independence is not independence. Independence must be be fought for and won. They declared, they fought and they lost. Consequently, they were and will always remain a failed insurrection - a treasonous confederation of states.

That just shows you don't understand what the word union means.
 
??? Ft. Sumter was a Federal Installation - property of the United States, so no occupation or invasion took place. Possession was established before S. Carolina voted for secession, so logically were they not seeking an armed conflict, they could have negotiated a time frame for withdrawal and offered a payment for the property.

The south asked... them... to.... leave. They didn't leave. That was the Souths territory.
 
You have nothing to fear. Relax. Calm down. My knowledge of history is extensive and my knowledge of reality is even broader.
Congratulations, you have just made the most incorrect statement in Debate Politics history. There is no prize, but you do get the consolation of knowing this post stood out. Thank you and good luck in your future endeavors.
 
The welfare clearly provides Congress with the power to tax and spend. To say that the welfare clause "does not give power" is patently idiotic.
Actually no. The power to lay and collect taxes is concisely spelled out but must be uniform. The north did not in fact have to power to regionalize taxes and tariffs. They were wrong in that.
 
So you think an amendment does nothing but an introduction gives power? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The Tenth Amendment does absolutely nothing to contradict the fact that the states committed treason according to the definition in the Constitution.

That just shows you don't understand what the word union means.
So I have arguments, court rulings, the Constitutional definition of treason and presidential documents ... and you have ... snark. Thank you for your concession. This was fun.
 
Last edited:
However, refusing to leave a military base, and in fact sending reinforcements to said base was viewed as an act of aggression.

Why would they abandon their property?
 
So you think an amendment does nothing but an introduction gives power? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
His premise falls apart without the assertation. Makes perfect sense when you think as one who defends the premise over the debate.
 
His premise falls apart without the assertation. Makes perfect sense when you think as one who defends the premise over the debate.
Why don't you address my actual arguments instead of talking to your friends?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom