• 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.
apdst said:
Ever hear of territories and statehood conventions?
Click to expand...

If Arkansas had did not choose do be a state, do you think they'd be independent? They'd be a territory. Still in the US.
 
theplaydrive said:
If you're asking whether or not states can come together and secede, I would imagine not because of the Contract Clause in Article I of the Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

In other words, if states petition together, it could be argued that they are petitioning as a confederation and their petition is therefore unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Not sure I'd buy that understanding of the clause. It's intent was to bar states from engaging in foreign policy and treaties. States have a long history of petitioning the SC as a group.

To my way of thinking a Constitutional Amendment could make secession an option pretty cleanly
 
snilloctjc said:
Not sure I'd buy that understanding of the clause. It's intent was to bar states from engaging in foreign policy and treaties. States have a long history of petitioning the SC as a group.
Click to expand...
True. However, in Williams v. Bruffy the Supreme Court rule that the entire Confederacy was an illegal organization because of the Contract Clause meaning that it interpreted the clause that way.

WILLIAMS V. BRUFFY, 96 U. S. 176 :: Volume 96 :: 1877 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
Contract Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Caine said:
Of course this ruling was going to be made POST Civil War!!!
Click to expand...

Of course it was. When else would the court address the issue? The Civil War was the only time when states actually tried to secede. The supreme court doesn't rule on things until they actually form some kind of controversy. Isn't that a good thing? It's a limitation on the power of the branch of government that isn't elected.

Henrin said:
Already dealt with and done with I would think. If you don't think so, try to defend it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not really sure what your point about it was last time. Do you somehow not think that the court held, in very clear black and white, that states do not have the right to secede? Because it did.

Texas v White said:
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.
Click to expand...

Becoming a state in the US is an agreement that lets in perpetuity. It cannot later be revoked. This isn't wishy washy or even arguable.
 
It can be reasonably considered a symbol of treason (which, if you ask me, is not necessarily a bad thing).
 
well, considering the unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter, the Confederate flag sure ain't a symbol of peaceful coexistence.
 
Thunder said:
well, considering the unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter, the Confederate flag sure ain't a symbol of peaceful coexistence.
Click to expand...
How was it unprovoked? Union soldiers were occupying a Confederate Fort and refused to leave when asked to do so.
 
FluffyNinja said:
How was it unprovoked? Union soldiers were occupying a Confederate Fort and refused to leave when asked to do so.
Click to expand...

it was unprovoked because the CSA attacked an American fort without first trying to negotiate its surrender with the USA. it was unprovoked because the United States had not shot first.
 
Thunder said:
it was unprovoked because the CSA attacked an American fort without first trying to negotiate its surrender with the USA. it was unprovoked because the United States had not shot first.
Click to expand...
This fort is smack dab in the middle of Charleston Harbor, in South Carolina, a state which legally seceded and was no longer a member of the United States. A sovereign state has the right to defend its own territory last time I checked.
 
Paschendale said:
eah, I'm not really sure what your point about it was last time. Do you somehow not think that the court held, in very clear black and white, that states do not have the right to secede? Because it did.
Click to expand...

My point was what it was based on in relation to the constitution was bogus. What he claims to have power that makes secession illegal is the introduction that holds no power and meant as an introduction. Even if Chase ignored(he knew) what the word nation means in the context it was used in.


Becoming a state in the US is an agreement that lets in perpetuity. It cannot later be revoked. This isn't wishy washy or even arguable.
Click to expand...

The idea the country is indissoluble is the same exact kind of crap that you hear in the state of alliance about "under God, indivisible"(which btw somehow makes two errors in three words which is actually impressive) that it is ignorant of the fact that we are a country of nations united for a common cause from the founding of the country to this day. It's historical record, and was not changed by the ending of the AOC.

Btw, while the argument is being made that the original contract only holds true for the original 13 which Texas would not fall under it was understood that all future members would have the same deal and that all states would have equal rights after that point. Texas or any other state would not be an exception therefore.
 
Last edited:
FluffyNinja said:
This fort is smack dab in the middle of Charleston Harbor, in South Carolina, a state which legally seceded and was no longer a member of the United States. A sovereign state has the right to defend its own territory last time I checked.
Click to expand...

the secession was legal? according to which law?

the fort belonged to the United States military. it was occupied by American soldiers. it was attacked, unprovoked.
 
Thunder said:
the secession was legal? according to which law?

the fort belonged to the United States military. it was occupied by American soldiers. it was attacked, unprovoked.
Click to expand...
Explain how secession was illegal under the Constitution at the time. You may want to go back and read from some posters in this thread who've already claimed this and could not provide Constitutional evidence to back it up. Let me save you the time..........the Constitution did not expressly prohibit secession and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said so in 1864 and again in 1869. The only thing you will find are a few ancillary ex post facto SCOTUS renderings from 10-20 years later which just happen to mention that the CSA was an illegal entity for the benefit of upholding the majority opinions in said cases. No Confederate EVER stood trial for treason. Why not?
 
Last edited:
FluffyNinja said:
This fort is smack dab in the middle of Charleston Harbor, in South Carolina, a state which legally seceded and was no longer a member of the United States. A sovereign state has the right to defend its own territory last time I checked.
Click to expand...

Secession is explicitly prohibited by the constitution. Therefore secession is illegal and the CSA never existed. The attack on fort sumter was an act of treason by pro-slavery rebels.
 
99percenter said:
Secession is explicitly prohibited by the constitution. Therefore secession is illegal and the CSA never existed. The attack on fort sumter was an act of treason by pro-slavery rebels.
Click to expand...
Okay. Try this. Keep saying it over and over and over again. Then check back tomorrow and see if HISTORY has decided to agree with you? :roll:
 
99percenter said:
Secession is explicitly prohibited by the constitution. Therefore secession is illegal and the CSA never existed. The attack on fort sumter was an act of treason by pro-slavery rebels.
Click to expand...

Could you please point out the specific language that prohibits secession?

EDIT - Oh wait. I see you've already done so. Our old friend the commerce clauses, eh?

So congress can regulate commerce among the several states (the states in the federation) and with foreign states (the rest of the states in the world).

And how exactly does this prohibit one of the member states from leaving the federation?
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
a desire to put the past behind us and reunify the nation.
Click to expand...
Well, let me expand upon my question. Why were no Confederates EVER put on trial for treason, EVEN after President Lincoln, President Johnson, the majority of Congress, and the Chief Justice himself (contrary to his legal interpretation) all openly stated that they WANTED Confederate leaders to stand trial?
 
FluffyNinja said:
Well, let me expand upon my question. Why were no Confederates EVER put on trial for treason, EVEN after President Lincoln, President Johnson, the majority of Congress, and the Chief Justice himself (contrary to his legal interpretation) all openly stated that they WANTED Confederate leaders to stand trial?
Click to expand...
Why do you think they weren't tried for treason? And why does it matter that they weren't?
 
FluffyNinja said:
...Why were no Confederates EVER put on trial for treason, EVEN after President Lincoln, President Johnson, the majority of Congress, and the Chief Justice himself (contrary to his legal interpretation) all openly stated that they WANTED Confederate leaders to stand trial?
Click to expand...

why don't you just tell us.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Well, let me expand upon my question. Why were no Confederates EVER put on trial for treason, EVEN after President Lincoln, President Johnson, the majority of Congress, and the Chief Justice himself (contrary to his legal interpretation) all openly stated that they WANTED Confederate leaders to stand trial?
Click to expand...

The north was actually very compassionate to the south. Lincoln wanted to readmit the south quickly and painlessly.
 
99percenter said:
The north was actually very compassionate to the south. Lincoln wanted to readmit the south quickly and painlessly.
Click to expand...
History, the Reconstruction period, the burning of Atlanta, and the rape of southern women by union soldiers kind of disagree with you.
 
LaMidRighter said:
History, the Reconstruction period, the burning of Atlanta, and the rape of southern women by union soldiers kind of disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Southern women are easy. They probably consented.
 
I am sure someone has said this already, but what flag are we talking about? The classic flag is a battle flag. Most people never take the time to figure that one out.

Also I would like to say that if the CSA flag is treason, then so is the United States flag. We rebelled. I think it would be far better, or more accurate, to call it a flag of rebellion. I know this is semantics, but one could make the case that there is a legitmate cause behind seccession. Economic repression, political differences that cannot be compromised on. The roots to the Civil War had been sown at the end of the Revolutionary war. An Agragarian South pitted against an Industrial Power house in the North. So the Civil War was almost a neccessary evil. At that time people still viewed their home towns and states as more important than the Federal government.

Anyway. Like I said. Rebellion. The cause was far to large to be considered treason. Maybe individuals could be considered treasonous? Not the movement. Of course what the flag represents depends on the person.
 
stonewall50 said:
I am sure someone has said this already, but what flag are we talking about? The classic flag is a battle flag. Most people never take the time to figure that one out.

Also I would like to say that if the CSA flag is treason, then so is the United States flag. We rebelled. I think it would be far better, or more accurate, to call it a flag of rebellion. I know this is semantics, but one could make the case that there is a legitmate cause behind seccession. Economic repression, political differences that cannot be compromised on. The roots to the Civil War had been sown at the end of the Revolutionary war. An Agragarian South pitted against an Industrial Power house in the North. So the Civil War was almost a neccessary evil. At that time people still viewed their home towns and states as more important than the Federal government.

Anyway. Like I said. Rebellion. The cause was far to large to be considered treason. Maybe individuals could be considered treasonous? Not the movement. Of course what the flag represents depends on the person.
Click to expand...
The debate isn't about the flag anymore. It is about whether secession is legal. I personally think its not because it is prohibited by our constitution. The opposition thinks that obedience to the constitution is optional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom