• 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.
In the sense that they are separate sovereign states, yes.

Do you deny that North Carolina and South Carolina were independent sovereign states after the revolutionary war?


yes, and they stopped being independent soverign states, when they ratified the Constitution and became part of the USA.
 
yes, and they stopped being independent soverign states, when they ratified the Constitution and became part of the USA.

Yes, you keep asserting that, yet offer no historical or constitutional evidence.

Thanks for adding me to your sig, by the way. Excellent publicity. Profile visits are way up...
 
See, and I don't think those regulations should be left to the states. I'm for uniformity.
I don't think uniformity is horrible if the line is drawn permanently and at the most minimal scope it can be. Here's where uniformity starts to be a problem: Any time different regions or states have different needs, for instance the sobriety of Utah is incompatible with the good time mentality of Louisiana, the environmental needs of California and Colorado because of their high elevations are non-existant in lower areas in the deep south, etc. I am a huge proponent of "laboratories of Democracy" as the state model has been called, if something doesn't work I don't want us all to be stuck with it, and even when it does work for one populace it may not universally be acceptable.


I understand that point and I can see it to some extent, though I do not agree. Based on the Articles and the implication of perpetuity, secession being barred seems clear.
That could be because of our federalist/anti-federalist divide. When it comes to this issue I am a constructionist.
 
do you honestly believe that today, in 2011.....the 50 states are really sovereign nation-states????

No, not nation-states. As rocket88 pointed out, I was using the wrong term. In my opinion, they are simply sovereign states who have entered into a federal compact. I see no evidence of them relinquishing their sovereignty, and as I noted above, several of them specifically stated that in joining the union they were not relinquishing their sovereignty. So yes, I believe they are sovereign states.
 
No, not nation-states. As rocket88 pointed out, I was using the wrong term. In my opinion, they are simply sovereign states who have entered into a federal compact. I see no evidence of them relinquishing their sovereignty, and as I noted above, several of them specifically stated that in joining the union they were not relinquishing their sovereignty. So yes, I believe they are sovereign states.

So wait... do you not realize that the Articles of Confederation were completely repealed when the Constitution was enacted? Nothing in them is valid any longer.
 
So wait... do you not realize that the Articles of Confederation were completely repealed when the Constitution was enacted? Nothing in them is valid any longer.

Of course. The states dissolved that compact and created our current compact.

My point is that they never voluntarily relinquished their sovereignty, unless someone can point out where any state indicated that they are doing so. Since several states clearly indicated that they were not relinquishing their sovereignty, I'll go with that.
 
That's where you are wrong. we have a federation not a confederation like EU. In any dispute, the federal govt is the final authority.
I thought that the Constitution was the final authority. Does the Rule of Law no longer apply in the USA, or just in your world?
 
That's where you are wrong. we have a federation not a confederation like EU. In any dispute, the federal govt is the final authority.

Hold on there. The states have some power exclusively, the federal government some exclusively, and some are shared - and when those in the last group conflict, then federal law is supreme. But that's not the same thing as "any dispute."
 
yes, and they stopped being independent soverign states, when they ratified the Constitution and became part of the USA.

They ceased being independent, but they still have sovereignty.

They gave up some of their sovereign powers, but not all, when they ratified the constitution. States are still the ultimate source of that power. The states could agree to abolish the federal government, just as they abolished the Articles of Confederation.
 
They ceased being independent, but they still have sovereignty.

They gave up some of their sovereign powers, but not all, when they ratified the constitution. States are still the ultimate source of that power. The states could agree to abolish the federal government, just as they abolished the Articles of Confederation.
Thanks for the response. I completely agree. This thread seems to now have evolved (devolved) into a discussion of where true(more) political authority lies: (1) With the people (states) or (2) With the Federal Government which was created by the people (states)?

I think that if we look at the evolution of our system from a TRULY HISTORICAL perpective and place events such as ratification of the constitution, Secession of the Southern states, and various Supreme Court Opinions in THEIR PROPER CONTEXT, it would become quite obvious as to which side the "political authority meter" tilts. :shrug:
 
Thanks for the response. I completely agree. This thread seems to now have evolved (devolved) into a discussion of where true(more) political authority lies: (1) With the people (states) or (2) With the Federal Government which was created by the people (states)?

I think that if we look at the evolution of our system from a TRULY HISTORICAL perpective and place events such as ratification of the constitution, Secession of the Southern states, and various Supreme Court Opinions in THEIR PROPER CONTEXT, it would become quite obvious as to which side the "political authority meter" tilts. :shrug:
Many people have missed the argument that the Civil War shifted power to the federal, if states lose the recourse of secession then it is eventually to be assumed by the federal government that they can invent extra constitutional powers later down the road, that theory has more than played out in the years following the surrender of the south. It's natural when debating the confederate flag that the conversation would devolve as such.
 
Many people have missed the argument that the Civil War shifted power to the federal, if states lose the recourse of secession then it is eventually to be assumed by the federal government that they can invent extra constitutional powers later down the road, that theory has more than played out in the years following the surrender of the south. It's natural when debating the confederate flag that the conversation would devolve as such.
Yes, exactly! And by doing so, they have fallaciously attempted to place the act of secession into a modern, legal context instead looking at it from the era-appropriate perpective when Strict Constructionism was still the accepted method of Constitutional interpretation. Sometimes I feel like hitting myself in the head with a damned brick because some of these people simply cannot shed their personal biases long enough to take a truly objective look at historical events.
 
Cite the exact area, I mean Article, Section, and paragraph. We want the EXACT words prohibiting secession.

I'm assuming that if we can't find it, secession is constitutional. By that logic, murder and arson are constitutional. Of course, I've already explained that secession has already been declared not only unconstitutional, but null and void as well.

Many people have missed the argument that the Civil War shifted power to the federal, if states lose the recourse of secession then it is eventually to be assumed by the federal government that they can invent extra constitutional powers later down the road, that theory has more than played out in the years following the surrender of the south. It's natural when debating the confederate flag that the conversation would devolve as such.

Which is the classic attempt to get our eye off the ball of what the Civil War was really about. Because if we somehow overlook the institution that the South was trying to protect, and if we somehow ignore the Supreme Court's ruling against secession, then all of a sudden this becomes a legitimate issue. The problem that the Confederate sympathizers don't understand is, you can't ignore either of those issues. Either one of them voids your entire argument.

Remember, the Civil War's being alleged as a war in favor of states' rights and economic freedom is nothing new. That was the cover story that the South gave for defending their bastard government. Everybody knew the real reason: Slavery.
 
I'm assuming that if we can't find it, secession is constitutional. By that logic, murder and arson are constitutional. Of course, I've already explained that secession has already been declared not only unconstitutional, but null and void as well.



Which is the classic attempt to get our eye off the ball of what the Civil War was really about. Because if we somehow overlook the institution that the South was trying to protect, and if we somehow ignore the Supreme Court's ruling against secession, then all of a sudden this becomes a legitimate issue. The problem that the Confederate sympathizers don't understand is, you can't ignore either of those issues. Either one of them voids your entire argument.

Remember, the Civil War's being alleged as a war in favor of states' rights and economic freedom is nothing new. That was the cover story that the South gave for defending their bastard government. Everybody knew the real reason: Slavery.

Well said.
 
I'm assuming that if we can't find it, secession is constitutional. By that logic, murder and arson are constitutional. Of course, I've already explained that secession has already been declared not only unconstitutional, but null and void as well.
First of all, murder and arson are not charges that can be brought up against a state, this is the first logical fallacy. Second, murder and arson being individual charges can be brought up against and individual through state laws and due process. As well the Federal government does have laws against individuals destroying federal property or committing murder against federal employees or within federal properties and that is perfectly legal, it falls under the defense clause. That is your second logical fallacy. Third, your appeal to the court. A law cannot be declared ex post facto. If you don't know what this means an american court cannot retroactively apply punishment in the U.S. for actions committed before a law or judgement was passed. In other words the U.S. could not declare that a legal act post war was illegal and that decision could not stand. As a matter of fact there are STILL state secession discussions. That is your final logical fallacy, appeal to authority can not stand on it's own, especially considering the authority in question tends to reverse itself on occasion.



Which is the classic attempt to get our eye off the ball of what the Civil War was really about. Because if we somehow overlook the institution that the South was trying to protect, and if we somehow ignore the Supreme Court's ruling against secession, then all of a sudden this becomes a legitimate issue. The problem that the Confederate sympathizers don't understand is, you can't ignore either of those issues. Either one of them voids your entire argument.
The only people attempting deflection are those trying to maintain that the north was 100% correct. The facts have been presented and shrugged off by people who don't want to admit that maybe they didn't get the whole story on the Civil War. But if you want to maintain your stance.....whatev.
Remember, the Civil War's being alleged as a war in favor of states' rights and economic freedom is nothing new. That was the cover story that the South gave for defending their bastard government. Everybody knew the real reason: Slavery.
Ah yes. More simplifying. Slavery was a sub-issue and the last straw, many writings from the north of the time even say that abolition was a sub-issue to their desire of maintaining the Union. So we can retire that argument.
 
I'm assuming that if we can't find it, secession is constitutional. By that logic, murder and arson are constitutional. Of course, I've already explained that secession has already been declared not only unconstitutional, but null and void as well.

When did that happen?



Which is the classic attempt to get our eye off the ball of what the Civil War was really about. Because if we somehow overlook the institution that the South was trying to protect, and if we somehow ignore the Supreme Court's ruling against secession, then all of a sudden this becomes a legitimate issue. The problem that the Confederate sympathizers don't understand is, you can't ignore either of those issues. Either one of them voids your entire argument.

Remember, the Civil War's being alleged as a war in favor of states' rights and economic freedom is nothing new. That was the cover story that the South gave for defending their bastard government. Everybody knew the real reason: Slavery.

Why do ya'll insist on labeling those who don't buy into your PC revised version of history, "Confederate sympathizers", or, "slavery apologists"?
 
Why do ya'll insist on labeling those who don't buy into your PC revised version of history, "Confederate sympathizers", or, "slavery apologists"?

Why is an orange called an orange? ;):lamo
 
The Confederate Flag is simply a symbol of the South... of Dixie. It is about being proud of that fact.

Don't make more of it is than it actually is... we have enough real problems in the world without manufacturing them.
 
When did that happen?





Why do ya'll insist on labeling those who don't buy into your PC revised version of history, "Confederate sympathizers", or, "slavery apologists"?

It is a classic liberal tactic. Attack and put on the defensive anything that you don't consider Politically Correct.

Don't want SSM... you are a bigot.
Think that traditional family structure might include women at home taking care of children, you are a sexist.
Want to stop illegal immigration, you are a racist.
think that the Dixie Flag is fine, you are a Confederate sympathizer...

It is cowardly and pathetic.
 
I'm assuming that if we can't find it, secession is constitutional. By that logic, murder and arson are constitutional. Of course, I've already explained that secession has already been declared not only unconstitutional, but null and void as well.

Laws can and do exist outside of the Constitution, and in the case of murder and arson the State is not only not allowed to deprive anybody of life liberty or property, but lawmakers have made laws that make average citizens depriving others of life liberty or property illegal.


Remember, the Civil War's being alleged as a war in favor of states' rights and economic freedom is nothing new. That was the cover story that the South gave for defending their bastard government. Everybody knew the real reason: Slavery.

Slavery was the issue that brought up States Rights... so the real issue was actually: States vs Federal Rights.

Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom