• 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.
The north had NO authority to lay taxes and tariffs on specifically the goods produced by the southern region, that is found right in article 8.

Article 8 of what? There are 7 articles in the Constitution.
 
Article 8 of what? There are 7 articles in the Constitution.
My bad. Kind of posting in a hurry. Article 1 sec. 8, the general welfare clause. One of the provisions found within states that congress has the power to lay and collect taxes but it must be applied equally among the states.
 
My bad. Kind of posting in a hurry. Article 1 sec. 8, the general welfare clause. One of the provisions found within states that congress has the power to lay and collect taxes but it must be applied equally among the states.

Fair enough, I wasn't sure what you were citing. As usual, when somebody cites the Constitution, I reach for the Constitution app on my phone. When I went to look it up in article 8, I couldn't find it!

I'll have to look up what tariffs they were when I'm not busy. I recall it being about cotton, but it's not the north's fault that cotton doesn't grow in Minnesota. Before I pass judgement, I'll look them up when I can.
 
Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks this, but this really just comes down to perception.

The South perceived themselves as independent, so according to them and those who see it their way - they were independent.

The North perceived the South as treasonous members of the Union, so according to them and those who see it their way - the CSA was not independent.

I could easily side with the South, but history tends to side with the North as no one ever becomes independent until they fight for it and win.
I guess I am the only one.

Cool. I'm fine with "I'm right. You're wrong. It has nothing to do with perspective."

/back to that.

I'm right, rocket88 is right. The rest of you are wrong.
 
My bad. Kind of posting in a hurry. Article 1 sec. 8, the general welfare clause. One of the provisions found within states that congress has the power to lay and collect taxes but it must be applied equally among the states.
The whole tariff issue is a farce. The North made the rights high until the Democrats gained power in Congress and brought them extremely low and the Southerners were very happy with the tariffs. Then Lincoln became president and they decided to secede. The idea that the south was fed up with the North over tariffs is nonsense. It was an issue, but a very small issue considering that for decades the South had continually lowering tariffs on their products right until Lincoln became president.
 
It was on southern land, it was funded at least in part by southern dollars, the north and south split so the binding contracts and treaties were null and void. And finally, it was on southern land.

The who paid taxes debate may be meaningless. If I am not mistaken, at that time in our history there were no federal income taxes. The military was funded by tariffs on imports. So do the "French" for example have a claim on the fort because we taxed their escargot imports?
 
The who paid taxes debate may be meaningless. If I am not mistaken, at that time in our history there were no federal income taxes. The military was funded by tariffs on imports. So do the "French" for example have a claim on the fort because we taxed their escargot imports?

Yes, of course they do.
 
Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks this, but this really just comes down to perception.

No it doesn't. You are only even saying this because your position has no feet.

I could easily side with the South, but history tends to side with the North as no one ever becomes independent until they fight for it and win.

Unless of course you understand the word union and the reason its called United States and the meaning of united and States. Why the ruling in 1869 was bogus, and what the introduction actually is for. Why the ruling was made, and what the tenth is actually for and does Or how just about what the founders said on the topic. If you understand all of that its pretty obvious you are full of it, but if you don't, well, sure lets go with that.

I mean you know..
 
Last edited:
No it doesn't. You are only even saying this because your position has no feet.
LOL, no. I have never had problems standing by my positions. I actually made the same argument yesterday because it's true. Property is subjective in its nature, particularly when it comes to nations and states. Consequently, who has a right to what property really just depends on which side you're coming from which is why the "right side" of civil wars (any civil war) is always hard to decipher and is often a point of contention among historians.

Nonetheless, while I recognize the subjectivity, I still take the side of Lincoln, the Supreme Court and the Union in general simply because history does not agree with your (and the Confederacy's position). If you look at history, you'll notice a theme. The theme is that many groups declare independence, but not all of them actually acquire it. The Confederacy is one of those groups. Look at every fight for independence - we don't call those fighting "independent" unless they actually win. The Confederacy is no different. It lost. It never achieved what it set out to achieve.

Unless of course you understand the word union and the reason its called United States and the meaning of united and States. Why the ruling in 1869 was bogus, and what the introduction actually is for. Why the ruling was made, and what the tenth is actually for and does Or how just about what the founders said on the topic. If you understand all of that its pretty obvious you are full of it, but if you don't, well, sure lets go with that.

I mean you know..
The only way for you to rationalize your position is to insult me and others. This says a lot about you and the weakness of your position. It's actually a shame because your position has validity all on it's own without the cheap shots.
 
A little thing I like to call history.

Also the rest of your post does absolutely nothing to contradict my point.

Let's see some sources. Without them, the rest of my post does nothing but contradict you.

Hint: you're not right, just because you say you are. You kinda sorta need something to back it up.
 
In so much that they lived on the continent of America. Their attempt, however, was to be recognized as NOT "American" in regard to being a citizen of the United States of America. They renounced that and set upon their revolution. They lost, and thus were not recognized as autonomous and sovereign.

Yeah, I guess that's why they called it the Confederate States of America. Because they didn't want to be, "Americans".
 
Wasn't the Confederacy founded on property rights? What gave South Carolina the right to take United States military property?

Because U.S. military installations were on Confederate soil.
 
They fired the first shots in reaction to a Federal occupation.

You mean the US Army occupying their property? The gall....

We've been over this. South Carolina seceding did not represent transfer of title to Ft. Sumter.
 
Let's see some sources. Without them, the rest of my post does nothing but contradict you.

Hint: you're not right, just because you say you are. You kinda sorta need something to back it up.
I've already posted many sources today. If you're interested you can find them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom