• 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.
99percenter said:
The US army wasn't occupying a sovereign nation. It was in the United States. The CSA was never recognized by any nation due to the illegality of secession and therefore never existed.
Click to expand...

England and France recognized the Confederacy, not that it holds any relevance and any countries that didn't recognize the Confederacy wasn't refusing to do so, because of the illegality of secession.

It's not like there was an international law against secession. :rofl

Where do ya'll come up with this stuff?
 
Ft. Sumter was a federally-owned fort before the South seceded. Are folks here suggesting that as soon as the South unilaterally decides it is a soverign state, ALL territory retro-actively becomes CSA land, thereby retro-actively making the Federal ownership of Ft. Sumter....illegal???

boy...talk about chutzpah.

Not only does this thread have folks excusing the Civil War as a war over property rights, but the same folks are now suggesting that those same property rights are only valid when a country unilaterally secedes..without ANY international recognition whatsoever.

so basically, if Muslim extremists unilaterally declare part of London to be a seperate country, they can then attack a police station, as that station is now illegally occupied by "foreign troops", aka the British police dept.
 
apdst said:
England and France recognized the Confederacy, not that it holds any relevance and any countries that didn't recognize the Confederacy wasn't refusing to do so, because of the illegality of secession.

It's not like there was an international law against secession. :rofl

Where do ya'll come up with this stuff?
Click to expand...

England and France didn't recognize the rebels and in fact refused to buy their cotton because of slave labor. British decided to get their cotton from india instead. But you are right. That's beside the point. The only nation's opinion that matters is the US and the south should have asked for permission to leave. They knew that they had to try and forcibly secede because the North would not have allowed it because secession is explicitly prohibited by our constitution.
 
99percenter said:
England and France didn't recognize the rebels and in fact refused to buy their cotton because of slave labor. British decided to get their cotton from india instead. But you are right. That's beside the point. The only nation's opinion that matters is the US and the south should have asked for permission to leave. They knew that they had to try and forcibly secede because the North would not have allowed it because secession is explicitly prohibited by our constitution.
Click to expand...

You don't have a clue, do you? The South accounted for 70% of all exports leaving the United States prior to 1860.

Wanna take a wild guess at what those exports were and where they were going?

You can't run around on half-****, claiming to be smarter and more informed than the rest of us and then say something that incredibily ignorant.
 
Thunder said:
Ft. Sumter was a federally-owned fort before the South seceded. Are folks here suggesting that as soon as the South unilaterally decides it is a soverign state, ALL territory retro-actively becomes CSA land, thereby retro-actively making the Federal ownership of Ft. Sumter....illegal???

boy...talk about chutzpah.

Not only does this thread have folks excusing the Civil War as a war over property rights, but the same folks are now suggesting that those same property rights are only valid when a country unilaterally secedes..without ANY international recognition whatsoever.

so basically, if Muslim extremists unilaterally declare part of London to be a seperate country, they can then attack a police station, as that station is now illegally occupied by "foreign troops", aka the British police dept.
Click to expand...

Does Islam stand for terrorism?
 
apdst said:
Does Islam stand for terrorism?
Click to expand...

If Muslims unilaterally declare part of London to be a seperate state, does that give them the right to violently attack a British police station, as it is now "illegally occupied" by British troops?
 
Thunder said:
If Muslims unilaterally declare part of London to be a seperate state, does that give them the right to violently attack a British police station, as it is now "illegally occupied" by British troops?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question.
 
99percenter said:
Im speaking from experience. And what makes you think im a hippy. I'm a left-leaning moderate.
Click to expand...

He has a point on you. Don't worry. We have the same opinion of Yankee chicks
 
stonewall50 said:
He has a point on you. Don't worry. We have the same opinion of Yankee chicks
Click to expand...

Yeah but with Yankee chicks you have to wear a rubber. Southern chicks oppose contraception.
 
Thunder said:
If Muslims unilaterally declare part of London to be a seperate state, does that give them the right to violently attack a British police station, as it is now "illegally occupied" by British troops?
Click to expand...
My, my. So prejudicial. Why must they be Muslims? Why are you being so intolerant? So, Islam is a violent religion, right? And I thought your side of the political spectrum was supposed to be the more open-minded? :shrug:

See how this works? Now I'm debating like your side; with statements chocked full of unsubstantiated fertilizer, ad hominem, and straw man arguments.
 
Last edited:
99percenter said:
The CSA was never recognized by any nation due to the illegality of secession and therefore never existed.
Click to expand...

Not only did other nations recognize the Confederacy and buy their cotton, they also sold war materials to them.

England sold war materials of all kinds, infantry equipments, horse equipments, muskets, cannon, and clothing.

Austria sold 100,000 Lorenz rifles to the Confederates.

Weapons and clothing from France

Raw materials--sulpher, copper and powder--from Mexico; not to mention the Europeans imports that were brought in through Mexican ports and into Texas.

Clothing from Russia and Canada.

Weapons from Prussia and Belgium
 
Thunder said:
first you answer my question, and I'll happily answer yours.
Click to expand...

I answered your question, before you ever asked it.

I'll add to it by telling you that several European countries sent observers to serve with the Confederate Army.
 
apdst said:
I answered your question, before you ever asked it....
Click to expand...

so if Muslims declared part of London to be a seperate state, they would have the right to attack a local police station, as it was now illegally occupied territory???

wow.


now, how many countries established diplomatic relations with the CSA?
 
Thunder said:
so if Muslims declared part of London to be a seperate state, they would have the right to attack a local police station, as it was now illegally occupied territory???

wow.


now, how many countries established diplomatic relations with the CSA?
Click to expand...

Oh, I dunno, you could probably start with the list of countries that were selling war materials to the Confederacy.

Go ahead, re-invent your argument. I know it's coming. :rofl
 
apdst said:
Oh, I dunno, you could probably start with the list of countries that were selling war materials to the Confederacy....
Click to expand...


ah, so those nations that sold weapons to the CSA, set up embassies & exchanged embassadors huh?

that's what establishing diplomatic relations means, ya know.
 
Thunder said:
ah, so those nations that sold weapons to the CSA, set up embassies & exchanged embassadors huh?

that's what establishing diplomatic relations means, ya know.
Click to expand...


And, since you've re-invented your argument, that's the only way to qualify, "diplomatic relations"? I'm sure it's not, but I know you're going to desperately grasp at whatever game of semantics you can to make yourself look less ignorant.


BTW, Arthur Fremantle was a British observer with the Army of Northern Virginia. Sounds like a diplomatic relation, to me.
 
apdst said:
And, since you've re-invented your argument, that's the only way to qualify, "diplomatic relations"?....
Click to expand...


exchanging ambassadors and establishing embassies on each other's territory. thats what establishing diplomatic relations means.
 
FluffyNinja said:
If you can produce some real evidence that shows that the CSA planned all along to invade the Union
Click to expand...

rocket88 said:
They didn't intend to invade the Union
Click to expand...

This must be why you accept the Southern apologists word for word. You read whatever meaning you want to read, instead of what people wrote.
 
apdst said:
And, since you've re-invented your argument, that's the only way to qualify, "diplomatic relations"? I'm sure it's not, but I know you're going to desperately grasp at whatever game of semantics you can to make yourself look less ignorant.


BTW, Arthur Fremantle was a British observer with the Army of Northern Virginia. Sounds like a diplomatic relation, to me.
Click to expand...

Usually "diplomatic relations" means an official recognition of sovereignty and an exchange of ambassadors. Just because it "sounds like a diplomatic relation" to you doesn't constitute diplomatic relations.

Making up your own meanings for words, and then you call everyone else "revisionists." :lamo
 
Thunder said:
exchanging ambassadors and establishing embassies on each other's territory. thats what establishing diplomatic relations means.
Click to expand...

So, Confederate ministers going to France and England probably doesn't count, I guess?

Go ahead, raise the bar another notch. Perhaps you can point out that no European ambassadors built homes in the South, with private parking for their beemers, with diplomatic plates.
 
apdst said:
So, Confederate ministers going to France and England probably doesn't count, I guess?
Click to expand...

Only if their credentials are accepted by the government there. They also, apparently sent representatives to negotiate with Lincoln...guess that means Lincoln recognized them.:shock:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom