• 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.
Right, the South did lose, but there's no need to revise history to state that fact. Thatone comment is a perfect example of how people have come to believe that slavery was the soul reason that the south seceded.

I don't care what you try to claim. For all the "superiority" of the South you may want to claim; they lost. Their cause lost. They had to renounce the Confederacy, it's flag died. The Confederate flag now is the flag of losers.
 
A voice with followers. IE there were a bunch of people that knew the truth, stated it, and yet was still not believed.



Since Galileo didn't work for you how about another example? There are millions of people that believe God exists and yet there are millions of people that believe that God doesn't exist. Which one is true or not doesn't matter. What the people believe is what we are talking about. You claim that they all knew better due to all the people stating the facts. If that was true then why doesn't everyone believe in God? Or are athiests?

And this is still this.
 
I don't know if Lincoln did say such thing. However I tend to disregard rulings by the SCOTUS when it comes secession. They were obviously biased and let that biasness show during that time.

All Supreme Court decisions are biased. There's no such thing as an objective Supreme Court decision. That's just the legal reality.
 
That's where you're going wrong, again. Nowhere have I justified, or defended slavery. Political correctness can make people see things the wrong way and once tey start seeing one thing the wrong way, they see everything the wrong way.

Apdst, lets look at this calmly and factually. You are without a doubt the single most sympathetic apologist for the South, for their institutions and for their actions of any other single poster on this board. And you seem proud of this distinction and relish in it. You do that to the extent that you will invent and create out of thin air phony "facts", made up "statistics" and in general provide "information" which even you cannot substantiate with any verifiable links or data. You are so eager to defend the South and their treasonous actions and the Southern institutions that you go to these lengths despite its damage to your own credibility and reputation here. That is saying something when somebody will go that far just trying to win an internet debate that they will engage in both lies and intellectual fraud to hope to do so.

I know of no other person here apdst who goes to those same lengths as you do. I have lots of disagreements with Turtle and there are times I want to reach through the screen and grab him by the lapels and scream and try to force him to prove his beliefs, but I have never found him to simply make stuff up or intentionally falsify what is information. I disagree with many libertarians and conservatives here but I do not see them falsifying and engaging in lies to try to win an internet argument.

Not only do you do this apdst, but you use 'sources' that are so tainted and so discredited that even Wikipedia will not allow them on their site and they are about as permissive as possible and allow member editing on almost everything. The latest use by you of somebody on the issue of blacks who owned slaves came down to you using the words of a convicted murderer serving a life sentence in Indiana and the views were published in Aryan supremacy and white supremacy newsletters. His views were so unusual, so extreme and so out of the mainstream that nobody could provide any verification for their claims. That is the source of your 'information'.

In my humble opinion based on several college degrees in Political Science ad History and teach both subjects for over 33 years, that indeed makes you a defender of the South and its institutions and actions - slavery being one of them.
 
Last edited:
You are without a doubt the single most sympathetic apologist for the South, for their institutions and for their actions of any other single poster on this board. You do that to the extent that you will invent and create out of thin air phony "facts", made up "statistics" and in general provide "information" which even you cannot substantiate with any verifiable links or data. You are so eager to defend the South and their treasonous actions and the Southern institutions that you go to these lengths despite its damage to your own credibility and reputation here. That is saying something when somebody will go that far just trying to win an internet debate that they will engage in both lies and intellectual fraud to hope to do so.

I know of no other person here apdst who goes to those same lengths as you do. I have lots of disagreements with Turtle and there are times I want to reach through the screen and grab him by the lapels and scream and try to force him to prove his beliefs, but I have never found him to simply make stuff up or intentionally falsify what is information. I disagree with many libertarians and conservatives here but I do not see them falsifying and engaging in lies to try to win an internet argument.

Not only do you do this apdst, but you use 'sources' that are so tainted and so discredited that even Wikipedia will not allow them on their site and they are about as permissive as possible and allow member editing on almost everything. The latest use by you of somebody on the issue of blacks who owned slaves came down to you using the words of a convicted murdered serving a life sentence in Indiana and the views were published in Aryan supremacy and white supremacy newsletters. His views were so unusual, so extreme and so out of the mainstream that nobody could provide any verification for their claims. That is the source of your 'information'.

In my humble opinion based on several college degrees in Political Science ad History and teach both subjects for over 33 years, that indeed makes you a defender of the South and its institutions and actions - slavery being one of them.

You need get your money back! :rofl

I mean, if you can't argue this point with anything other than personal attacks and not a single source of documentation, whatever fleebag schools you went to, screwed you out of your money.

No wonder our kids leave high school and don't know how to read.
 
I'm sorry but the facts don't seem to support your argument.

Prior to forming their compact, the states were sovereign independent nation-states. They all recognized each others sovereignty and independence, as evidenced by the language in the articles of confederation.

They saw themselves as bring independent nation-states for a few years before the articles of confederation, but really they were not yet free of England. The Revolutionary war didn't end until 1783, but they ratified the articles of confederation in 1781.

The constitution, like the articles before it, represents a voluntary compact among the states who joined. No state ever declared that they were relinquishing their sovereignty or their right to leave the union. In fact, several states made a point of expressly stating that they retained the right to leave if they wished.

It is a voluntary compact between the states who joined, and none of them relinquished their sovereignty. I've already said that I agreed with both those points. But sovereignty doesn't mean absolute sovereignty. Their governments are not like Kings or Queens, they have submitted to the rule of law. The constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

That means that they don't have a sort of sovereignty that allows them to ignore the constitution or federal law. By signing the constitution, including that statement, they were using their sovereign powers to submit themselves to federal law. Sovereigns, even king and queen absolute sovereigns, can submit to an agreement that is binding against them. In addition to the supremacy clause above, the constitution also talks about how the federal government gets extra powers when cracking down on rebellions. That's what you're talking about- a rebellion.
 
Last edited:
In my humble opinion based on several college degrees in Political Science ad History and teach both subjects for over 33 years, that indeed makes you a defender of the South and its institutions and actions - slavery being one of them.

You act like just because you love something you have to love everything about it.
 
However seceeding was not really a rebellion. It was a withdrawal. Much like what would happen if we withdrew from the UN. Would you consider withdrawing from the UN a rebellion?

In the 14th amendment where they talk about rebellion a lot, what they are referring to is the confederacy. They were saying that the US would not be held responsible for the debts of the confederacy and that politicians that led the confederacy would not be permitted to take seats in Congress. You could maybe argue that the reference to rebellion in the original constitution wasn't meant to include succession, but definitely the post 14th amendment constitution does include succession as rebellion.

Also, I think the confederacy considered it to be a rebellion too. That's where "rebel yell" comes from.

A rebellion is something happens when you attempt to take over an existing government. The southern states was not attempting to do this. They were perfectly willing to let the rest of the Union be as it was.

Succession is basically overthrowing the government in one part of the country.

However, the South was not a part of those preceedings. Remember, the South seceeded from the Union. As such those states that were still a part of that Union did not include the southern states in the Constitutions representitive status. Indeed, the southern states had to reapply for admission into the Union before they were again allowed a say in Congress/Senate and to be considered a part of the United States. Knowing that they had to reapply shows that the US at the time did consider the south to not officially belong in the Union. Instead they were considered territories. To apply a present day comparrison think of the Virgin Islands. Only difference being that with the Southern states we had to conquer them. We bought the Virgin Islands.

Yeah, that's right. Although, it depends how you mean "not officially belong in the Union". Territories aren't outside of the sovereignty of the US, they're just denied local government. They were ruled by federally created military government. They were certainly not independent nations, they were subjugated by the US.

Of course, once the southern states reapplied for admission into the US they then accepted all the amendments, including the 14th.

They were more or less forced to. The federal government refused to allow them to form a civil government or participate in government at the federal level until they agreed to the 14th.

Which would apply if the Southern states had violated any of the laws set down by the US Constitution or any other law of the time. However AFAIK there was nothing in the Constitution which prohibited secession (there still isn't) and there was no law outside of the Constitution which also prohibited secession.

For most things, if the constitution is silent, that means it is permitted. But succession isn't most things. Succession is refusing to adhere to all the other commitments made in the constitution. The states signed off on granting all kind of authority to the federal government. If that was not intended to be binding on them, the constitution would have to say that explicitly- that succession is an exception to all of the above. But without that, the language is clearly binding.

On top of that you have the harsh treatments of rebellion, insurrection, treason, and making war against the United States sprinkled throughout the constitution. Article 3, section 3 says "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort ... The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason". Article 1, section 8 says that Congress can "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections". Article 1, section 9 says that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." These three taken together mean that succeeding and declaring war on the US is a crime which Congress can punish, that the military can be used to suppress succession attempts, and that all legal protections can be denied those who succeed. That was all in the constitution before the civil war. Nowdays, with the 14th, it is even more explicit.
 
You need get your money back! :rofl

I mean, if you can't argue this point with anything other than personal attacks and not a single source of documentation, whatever fleebag schools you went to, screwed you out of your money.

No wonder our kids leave high school and don't know how to read.

You confuse presenting the facts about you with a personal attack.

You have been given all manner of sources of documentation. When you presented your sources on black ownership of slaves I gave you repeated links showing you were quoting a discredited white supremacist in prison on a life sentence of first degree murder. I gave you links showing that your source had been discredited by even an easy going site like Wikipedia and they would not accept his unsupported 'views' as a source due to the information not being able to be verified.

When you claimed that only 1% owned slaves in the South, I gave you many sources which said otherwise - and all were accepted sites - not white supremacist sites.

When you challenged me for more sources, I gave you at least four or five major works on slavery and even provided you with information on how to order them so you could learn more.

You can attack me and my experience and my education in order to somehow someway try to elevate your own self in your estimation but it still leaves you with the same failed promises, the same lies, the same white supremacist sites as your sources and the same boasts, claims and allegations that you fail to support with anything that can be verified by reputable sources.

In the end, you still are the number one apologist on this site for the South and the confederacy, for its institutions and its economic way of life, for its motivations and its actions. You still do go to extraordinary lengths including outright falsehoods to attempt to win an internet argument. You still rely on discredited white supremacist sources for your 'information' and you still utterly fail to back up your boasts, claims and allegations.

None of that is a personal attack upon you. All of it is factual and directly speaking to your posts here. You may be the greatest truck driver in the nation for all I know. You may be one heck of a guy and would make a great friend. I do not know that.

What I do know is that when it comes to this subject, your views have no credibility of any kind due to your own inability to support them and your own tactics that you employ to attempt to dishonestly win an internet dispute.
 
Last edited:
It is a voluntary compact between the states who joined, and none of them relinquished their sovereignty. I've already said that I agreed with both those points. But sovereignty doesn't mean absolute sovereignty. Their governments are not like Kings or Queens, they have submitted to the rule of law. The constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

That means that they don't have a sort of sovereignty that allows them to ignore the constitution or federal law. By signing the constitution, including that statement, they were using their sovereign powers to submit themselves to federal law. Sovereigns, even king and queen absolute sovereigns, can submit to an agreement that is binding against them. In addition to the supremacy clause above, the constitution also talks about how the federal government gets extra powers when cracking down on rebellions. That's what you're talking about- a rebellion.

As long as they wish to remain in the union, the states must abide by its rules, yes. I totally agree.

We simply disagree on whether or not the states may leave the union. I contend that they may, as there is no prohibition in the constitution against them doing so.
 
You act like just because you love something you have to love everything about it.

I am sorry but I do not understand what you are attempting to convey with that remark.
 
Territories aren't outside of the sovereignty of the US, they're just denied local government. They were ruled by federally created military government. They were certainly not independent nations, they were subjugated by the US.

I think it's an important distinction to remember that so many states were carved out of larger territories. There never was an independent nation of Alabama -- it was a territory, given to the United States at the conclusion of the Revolution. Alabama Territory was arbitrarily split from Georgia (which originally claimed it), then Congress drew a line down the middle and said "This side of the line is the State of Alabama, and the other side is the State of Mississippi." That's an extremely simplified version, but there was not a country called Alabama that decided "Hey, let's join this alliance." If it didn't become a State, it still would have been a territory. That was the choice - State or Territory.

Same is true of most states. The only states that could really claim independence were Texas, California, Hawaii, and possibly Vermont (thought that's a bit up in the air). Almost everything else was arbitrarily created out of territory that was already part of the US.
 
"Is the Confederate flag a symbol of treason?"

to properly answer the question the answer is 100% YES

Is the confederate flag A symbol of treason? yes of course it is and thats a fact. But what is also a fact is that it doesnt HAVE to be and treason isnt its ONLY symbol, but since thats not what you asked I answered the only true way.

Its subjective as to what a person uses the flag for or the meaning a person feels it has. They might fly it because they like the Dukes of Hazard or they might be racist or they might be a history buff ect ect ect But it is also a symbol of treason just like a swastika is a symbol of racism as well as a symbol of good luck to some.:shrug:

oh well fact is it is "A" symbol of treason.
 
As long as they wish to remain in the union, the states must abide by its rules, yes. I totally agree.

We simply disagree on whether or not the states may leave the union. I contend that they may, as there is no prohibition in the constitution against them doing so.

What do you think about this argument from my post above to Kal'Stang:

Article 3, section 3 says "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort ... The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason". Article 1, section 8 says that Congress can "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections". Article 1, section 9 says that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." These three taken together mean that succeeding and declaring war on the US is a crime which Congress can punish, that the military can be used to suppress succession attempts, and that all legal protections can be denied those who succeed. That was all in the constitution before the civil war. Nowdays, with the 14th, it is even more explicit.
 
They might fly it because they like the Dukes of Hazard

When I was a kid, the Dukes of Hazard was hands down my favorite show. My family used to have pizza every Friday and watch it. It was my favorite family tradition.

But, I watched an episode the other day, and let me tell you, it turns out it is super racist. At least this episode was. It started out showing two black guys driving into town. Not doing anything suspicious, just driving. Then the narrator, Waylon Jennings, comes in and says "well you could just tell them boys was up to no good"... And then the rest of the episode is about the Dukes chasing the black guys out of town. It's one of those things where you didn't notice it at the time, but it's super obvious when you watch it now. Like how Top Gun is all blatant gay innuendo, but you totally didn't notice that when it first came out.
 
They saw themselves as bring independent nation-states for a few years before the articles of confederation, but really they were not yet free of England. The Revolutionary war didn't end until 1783, but they ratified the articles of confederation in 1781.

It is a voluntary compact between the states who joined, and none of them relinquished their sovereignty. I've already said that I agreed with both those points. But sovereignty doesn't mean absolute sovereignty. Their governments are not like Kings or Queens, they have submitted to the rule of law. The constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

That means that they don't have a sort of sovereignty that allows them to ignore the constitution or federal law. By signing the constitution, including that statement, they were using their sovereign powers to submit themselves to federal law. Sovereigns, even king and queen absolute sovereigns, can submit to an agreement that is binding against them. In addition to the supremacy clause above, the constitution also talks about how the federal government gets extra powers when cracking down on rebellions. That's what you're talking about- a rebellion.

By the way, I just wanted to at least agree with you on one point. Whether or not the states were sovereign prior to forming their union, and whether or not they anticipated that they could someday leave the union if they chose is in reality a moot point. The fact of the matter is that whether or not any state has the right to withdraw will really be decided by whether any state can actually do it.

The union will never allow secession as long as it has the power to prevent it. That is a fact. They will essentially respond to any legal case for secession as did Pompey: "Why do you quote laws to us who have swords." At this point, the states are ruled by the union, and what sovereignty they are allowed to exercise is determined by the union. Empires never voluntarily relinquish territory.

Secession will not happen again until the balance of military power shifts or the union chooses to let a state(s) go. Secession was decided militarily last time, and it will always be decided militarily.
 
When I was a kid, the Dukes of Hazard was hands down my favorite show. My family used to have pizza every Friday and watch it. It was my favorite family tradition.

But, I watched an episode the other day, and let me tell you, it turns out it is super racist. At least this episode was. It started out showing two black guys driving into town. Not doing anything suspicious, just driving. Then the narrator, Waylon Jennings, comes in and says "well you could just tell them boys was up to no good"... And then the rest of the episode is about the Dukes chasing the black guys out of town. It's one of those things where you didn't notice it at the time, but it's super obvious when you watch it now. Like how Top Gun is all blatant gay innuendo, but you totally didn't notice that when it first came out.

seems I remember seeing that episode about 100 times but sometimes it was two white guys, sometimes it was a whit and a black guy, sometimes it was white guy and a native american, sometimes its a 3 person gang with a girl :shrug:

so IF it was some how racist racist it wasnt by casting black guys and paying them lol

BUT daisy was an HUGE SLUT that I didnt realize when I was young
 
What do you think about this argument from my post above to Kal'Stang:

Article 3, section 3 says "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort ... The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason". Article 1, section 8 says that Congress can "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections". Article 1, section 9 says that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." These three taken together mean that succeeding and declaring war on the US is a crime which Congress can punish, that the military can be used to suppress succession attempts, and that all legal protections can be denied those who succeed. That was all in the constitution before the civil war. Nowdays, with the 14th, it is even more explicit.

I think that a state leaving the union is not in any way levying war against any of the other states. If a state declared it was peacefully withdrawing from the union and did so, it would not be levying war against anyone.
 
I think that a state leaving the union is not in any way levying war against any of the other states. If a state declared it was peacefully withdrawing from the union and did so, it would not be levying war against anyone.

At best that sentiment is naive... at worst it is disingenuous and deceitful. A state may well declare that it is seceding and claim that it is doing so peacefully without any action of violence taken in terms of a shot being fired. But the act itself is one of treason and rebellion and it knowingly invites a response from the nation and to stand there shuffling your feet looking all innocent and pretending otherwise is just a fraud.
 
At best that sentiment is naive... at worst it is disingenuous and deceitful. A state may well declare that it is seceding and claim that it is doing so peacefully without any action of violence taken in terms of a shot being fired. But the act itself is one of treason and rebellion and it knowingly invites a response from the nation and to stand there shuffling your feet looking all innocent and pretending otherwise is just a fraud.

Would you consider it treason and rebellion for Norway to peacefully secede from the United Nations?
 
seems I remember seeing that episode about 100 times but sometimes it was two white guys, sometimes it was a whit and a black guy, sometimes it was white guy and a native american, sometimes its a 3 person gang with a girl :shrug:

so IF it was some how racist racist it wasnt by casting black guys and paying them lol

LOL. Maybe that's true. I sure hope so. I'd hate to think that my cherished childhood tradition was racist... Still though, I bet if you watched a few episodes today you'd see some of them a bit differently through a modern perspective.

BUT daisy was an HUGE SLUT that I didnt realize when I was young

Ok, even I realized that. Ridiculously short jean shorts are named after her for goodness sakes.
 
I think that a state leaving the union is not in any way levying war against any of the other states. If a state declared it was peacefully withdrawing from the union and did so, it would not be levying war against anyone.

Well the south did levy war against the US. I imagine that any succession would. Levying doesn't necessarily mean starting a war, it means participating in a war against the US.
 
Would you consider it treason and rebellion for Norway to peacefully secede from the United Nations?
Treason is about states, governments and nations - not international organizations or alliances. That is an extremely false comparison.
 
Would you consider it treason and rebellion for Norway to peacefully secede from the United Nations?

the UN is NOT a nation. Norway is NOT part of any nation other than Norway. The question is without merit or foundation........... and that has already been pointed out to you by others and I already answered your question when you posed it about the USA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom