• 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:
Actually you are wrong. There was no such thing as southern land. United States had authority over all the United States including the south. The United States would have to approve withdrawal from tue union. Secession is explicitly prohibited by our constitution and therefore the CSA never existed. The South was occupying federal property.
Click to expand...
Keep telling yourself this, maybe some day it will come true.
 
99percenter said:
Actually you are wrong. There was no such thing as southern land. United States had authority over all the United States including the south. The United States would have to approve withdrawal from tue union. Secession is explicitly prohibited by our constitution and therefore the CSA never existed. The South was occupying federal property.
Click to expand...

secession is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution... you can argue it's implied.. but it is not and was not expressly prohibited.

as for claims on the land... welll, that's what they fought a war over the Union thought it was their land, the Confederacy thought it was theirs.... you are simply taking sides, not promoting facts.
 
Thunder said:
if you think South Carolina is sovereign, like Denmark is sovereign, than you are very...very wrong.
Click to expand...

Per the Treaty of Paris that ended the revolutionary war: "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. "
 
FluffyNinja said:
If you honestly believe that the tariff and the ralroad were "not big deals" then perhaps you should do a bit of research. I suggest starting with some of the writings/speeches of John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you brought up Calhoun and Clay because that sets the stage for my explanation as to why tariffs weren't a big deal.

1. The tariff you're referring to is the Tariff of 1828. It helped the North quite a bit and shafted the South. Southerners were pissed, Clay and Calhoun did their thing, etc., etc. All of this led to the "Nullification Crisis" when South Carolina claimed the tariff was unconstitutional and some people threatened secession. But this was in 1828. Why is the year so important? Because from ~1830 to 1860, Democrats (the Southerner's Party) controlled Congress and brought those tariffs down an awful lot to the point where most Southerners were pretty satisfied. In other words, 1828 was way before 1861 and by 1861 tariffs were lower than they had been since 1816.

Even so, in 1860, Lincoln was elected and the "Morrill Tariff" did threaten to raise the rates again, so I guess you could argue that that was a big deal. But wait! Many states had already seceded from the Union before the tariff was even passed. And wait again! Many Southern members of the Congress abandoned their positions not even attempting to stop the tariff. And if the tariff was such a big deal - then staying in Congress would have been a much easier solution than seceding or fighting a war. So no you can't argue that.

2. Let's also look at South Carolina's declaration of secession. Why? Because they were the main state involved in the Nullification Crisis and they were also the first state to secede. What did they give as the reason for their decision:

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

They did not mention tariffs once. Yet they mention slavery over and over and over again.

The bottom line is that Southerners were afraid Lincoln would, at the very least, stop the expansion of slavery, and at the most, end it altogether (they were right). Such a threat to slavery threatened their entire economy and livelihoods far more than the greatest tariff ever would. The idea that a tariff would deserve even close to an equal position on the importance scale as slavery is based in a denial of how central slavery was to Southern economy.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Actually, the north is the revisionist side here. I'll give the simplest analogy I can since people either couldn't or wouldn't understand the Gitmo, or China analogies that myself and other posters presented.

If I allow you to stay on my property while we have an agreement and you put up a house, it is still on my property. Let's say we have irreconcilable differences and I void the agreement, I may make you an offer to reimburse you for the house but you must vacate the property and move all belongings you want to keep, regardless of what you feel is yours you do not own anything within the borders. If you then refuse to leave I then give a stern warning that I do not want you on the premises but you persist, and then you get the authorities on your side whether or not the law states you have any rights or claims to my property. Well, the next step is to put bullets into anything that becomes a problem.

For the purposes of the analogy you doesn't mean any particular poster or other human being, it's just to personalize so that maybe people will understand.
Click to expand...

Let me give you a better analogy. Say you are renting an apartment and your landlord institutes a new policy prohibiting pets. Well you disagree and you decide that you are going to claim that apartment as your own. That is illegal. If you want to keep your pet you move to an apartment that allows it. Same thing. The redneck crackers should have gone to a country where slavery was allowed. Not that there were any left. We were the last ones to abolish it. The South keeps trying to block progress.
 
Thunder said:
right. redneck, hick, hillbilly....and "nigger"...all hold the same weight.

man, I've never read such ignorant dishonesty in one day.
Click to expand...

Racism is racism. I doesn't matter who it's directed towards.

I guess you're trying to tell us that some racism ok, but other racism isn't. And you call me ignorant? :lamo
 
Thunder said:
that's what some folks refuse to grasp. The United States of America is not a union of sovereign states, like the EU is.

In 1787, when the States ratified the Constitution, they willingly gave up their nationhood to become part of a larger nation.
Click to expand...

Do you have any historical evidence or text in the constitution to support this wild claim of yours?
 
99percenter said:
Let me give you a better analogy. Say you are renting an apartment and your landlord institutes a new policy prohibiting pets. Well you disagree and you decide that you are going to claim that apartment as your own. That is illegal. If you want to keep your pet you move to an apartment that allows it. Same thing. The redneck crackers should have gone to a country where slavery was allowed. Not that there were any left. We were the last ones to abolish it. The South keeps trying to block progress.
Click to expand...
Nope, bad analogy.........."When you wish, upon a star............".
 
theplaydrive said:
I'm very confused as to where people are getting this idea that the US is the same as the EU or the UN. I've never heard anyone claim that before, but in this thread, people are acting like it's common knowledge. It's crazy. The US is a single nation, not a union of several nation-states as many have claimed.
Click to expand...

Well, the states were sovereign, independent nation-states prior to entering into their compact, correct?

Their compact does not specify that they are relinquishing their sovereignty, and in fact several states specifically declared that they were not doing so.

So how and when did the states renounce their sovereignty?
 
Centinel said:
Well, the states were sovereign, independent nation-states prior to entering into their compact, correct?

Their compact does not specify that they are relinquishing their sovereignty, and in fact several states specifically declared that they were not doing so.

So how and when did the states renounce their sovereignty?
Click to expand...

When they agreed to scrap the articles of confederation and create a federation.
 
Centinel said:
Per the Treaty of Paris that ended the revolutionary war: "His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. "
Click to expand...

Didn't King George III also talk to trees? Not sure he's an authority you want to appeal to.

He also doesn't recognize Vermont, Tennessee, etc. So if this is your appeal that all of the states are sovereign, it really doesn't do it.
 
Thunder said:
Indeed. We are not the European Union. We aren't even Canada, which is a confederacy of Provinces. We are ONE nation.
Click to expand...

Please support your claim by citing the founders or ratifiers.
 
apdst said:
I guess you're trying to tell us that some racism ok, but other racism isn't. And you call me ignorant? :lamo
Click to expand...

Actually you are viewed as IGNORANT - at least on the subject of the Civil war era because of statements like this one

What I will do, however, prove that all 11 Confederate states and 3 border states had state wide referendums on secession.
Click to expand...

And what you did offer was a measly three states which did so. A bigger and wiser man would fess up to his shortcomings and failures and move on. A truly ignorant man doubles down looking at a losing hand.
 
99percenter said:
Let me give you a better analogy. Say you are renting an apartment and your landlord institutes a new policy prohibiting pets. Well you disagree and you decide that you are going to claim that apartment as your own. That is illegal. If you want to keep your pet you move to an apartment that allows it. Same thing. The redneck crackers should have gone to a country where slavery was allowed. Not that there were any left. We were the last ones to abolish it. The South keeps trying to block progress.
Click to expand...

"redneck crackers"

lovely.


hey.. where is thunder?... come on over and tell me this cat isn't a racist/bigot again.... come on over and defend him some more... show us your colors like he has shown us his.
 
Centinel said:
Please support your claim by citing the founders or ratifiers.
Click to expand...

We, the People, in order to form a perfect UNION. Establish justice and insure DOMESTIC tranquility. Provide for the COMMON defense. Promote the GENERAL welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, to OURSELVES and our posterity...do ordain & establish this Constitution of the UNITED States of America.

happy now??? (yes, I memorized it years ago)


:)
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
...hey.. where is thunder?... come on over and tell me this cat isn't a racist/bigot again.... come on over and defend him some more... show us your colors like he has shown us his.
Click to expand...

do you know how I define a "redneck"? a racist white person. poverty need not be included.

no, its not bigotry...to hate racism and racists.
 
Centinel said:
Well, the states were sovereign, independent nation-states prior to entering into their compact, correct?
Click to expand...

Let's straighten out some terminology. A "nation-state" is a country based upon an ethnic grouping. None of the States currently in the union fit that description, and you'll have a heck of a time convincing me that the people of North Carolina are essentially a different culture than South Carolina.

You may continue with your misguided argument that we are not "One nation, Under God, indivisble," if you wish.
 
Thrilla said:
"redneck crackers"

lovely.


hey.. where is thunder?... come on over and tell me this cat isn't a racist/bigot again.... come on over and defend him some more... show us your colors like he has shown us his.
Click to expand...

As usual you don't even bother trying to rebut my argument and focus on what term i used for the redneck crackers from the south. I guess next time I am debating health care reform with you I will single out use of "obamacare" and ignore the rest of your post. Speaking of which. I though you were going to ignore the rest of my posts especially the ones where i use "racist" terminology.
 
rocket88 said:
Let's straighten out some terminology. A "nation-state" is a country based upon an ethnic grouping. None of the States currently in the union fit that description, and you'll have a heck of a time convincing me that the people of North Carolina are essentially a different culture than South Carolina.

You may continue with your misguided argument that we are not "One nation, Under God, indivisble," if you wish.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We aren't 50 different cultures like people believe. Its disheartening that some people still want to think that.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
Actually, the north is the revisionist side here. I'll give the simplest analogy I can since people either couldn't or wouldn't understand the Gitmo, or China analogies that myself and other posters presented.

If I allow you to stay on my property while we have an agreement and you put up a house, it is still on my property. Let's say we have irreconcilable differences and I void the agreement, I may make you an offer to reimburse you for the house but you must vacate the property and move all belongings you want to keep, regardless of what you feel is yours you do not own anything within the borders. If you then refuse to leave I then give a stern warning that I do not want you on the premises but you persist, and then you get the authorities on your side whether or not the law states you have any rights or claims to my property. Well, the next step is to put bullets into anything that becomes a problem.

For the purposes of the analogy you doesn't mean any particular poster or other human being, it's just to personalize so that maybe people will understand.
Click to expand...

You need to get your facts straight (and cut out the flaming).

For one thing, a hostile group of Southerners basically had Ft. Sumter surrounded and cut off from basic supplies. That could have been construed as an act of war. But fortunately, one of the many things the Confederacy didn't have was the shrewd leader Abraham Lincoln. Instead of attacking, he sent a supply vessel to Ft. Sumter so that the men could have food on their table. The aggressive Southerners, of course, wanted nothing to do with this, choosing to assault the fort instead.

Also, you beg the question of the legality of secession. Pro-secessionists WANT it to be legal, and they keep crying "10th Amendment," despite the fact that the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that this is not the case.

Can I ask you something? Why are you and a few others so eager to defend a "nation" (and I use that word VERY loosely) that established itself as a sworn enemy of the United States of America? I, for one, and SO glad that the Confederacy got crushed in the Civil War. United States of America, not Divided States of America.
 
rocket88 said:
Let's straighten out some terminology. A "nation-state" is a country based upon an ethnic grouping. None of the States currently in the union fit that description, and you'll have a heck of a time convincing me that the people of North Carolina are essentially a different culture than South Carolina.

You may continue with your misguided argument that we are not "One nation, Under God, indivisble," if you wish.
Click to expand...

its unbelievable sometimes, what folks say regarding the Civil War.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom