• 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.
Debunked what? You gave your opinion that Supreme Court was wrong. Pro-life people do the same thing for Roe v. Wade everyday. The Supreme Court ruled abortion legal and it ruled secession illegal. No amount of opining makes secession legal. The Court already made its decision.

I gave a factual based understanding of the clauses referenced, the powers behind them, and the proper understanding of how the country was formed correcting Chase on all counts of his opinion.


You dismiss what you don't like. This is noted.

When you change your mind of what clauses mean it does dismiss you and your understanding of what such clauses, yes. The only other understanding you can come to is that he learned more about the subject, but that would just mean he was wrong in 1869 and right in 1875, which would harm you greatly. Either way you are ****ed here.

1. "I disagree with the Supreme Court. Therefore, secession is legal." That's not how it works. If you disagree with the Supreme Court, then you disagree on whether it should be legal. But the SC already declared it illegal, so I'm not sure what you think you're debunking.

I debunked their opinions based on the constitution itself and the founders thoughts on it. This what you do when you are arguing against court rulings.

2. If I say the word "debunked", people will believe me. That's also not how it works.

I gave reasoning behind everything I said, as have everyone else. There is little point in going over it again. You just have to argue against it for a change instead of just repeating yourself without facing any counter arguments that might harm you.

The word you're looking for is "disagree". You disagree with the Supreme Court rulings. You disagree with Chase and Lincoln. You disagree that most issues in the Civil War revolved around slavery. When you accept this, we might be able to have a conversation, but at this point, you've just become a parrot without substance.

Unless you can show how I am wrong, and how the founders can be wrong about what they wrote you have no case other than yourself.
 
Last edited:
They think that "I don't like it" and "I debunked it" are one and the same.

In all fairness to Henrin, what he fails to realize is this
1- your post was read
2- your ideas were considered
3- they were dealt with and discussed
4- your points were dismissed as less than valid or irrelevant or just plain wrong in the context of history
5- you are simply incorrect

That is what I meant when I said Henrin was debunked.

for example

Unless you can show how I am wrong, and how the founders can be wrong about what they wrote you have no case other than yourself.

The Supreme Court said otherwise. I do not have that responsibility and authority. You do not have that responsibility and authority. The Supreme Court has it and they exercised it in accordance with their Constitutional duties in the White case. That is the case and there is nothing you can do about it.
 
Last edited:
Has someone made some tedious explanation for why secession wasn't really about slavery yet? I'm too lazy to check.

OMG! It's explained and supported, ad nauseum.
 
OMG! It's explained and supported, ad nauseum.

and the same thing applies to apdst


In all fairness to you, what you fail to realize is this
1- your post was read
2- your ideas were considered
3- they were dealt with and discussed
4- your points were dismissed as less than valid or irrelevant or just plain wrong in the context of history
5- you are simply incorrect
 
It is NOT there. You surely haven't done **** here, like usual.

Then where is it? It is there. Always has been at least for the last century and a half.

1- your post was read
2- your ideas were considered
3- they were dealt with and discussed
4- your points were dismissed as less than valid or irrelevant or just plain wrong in the context of history
5- you are simply incorrect
 
In all fairness to Henrin, what he fails to realize is this
1- your post was read
2- your ideas were considered
3- they were dealt with and discussed
4- your points were dismissed as less than valid or irrelevant or just plain wrong in the context of history
5- you are simply incorrect

That is what I meant when I said Henrin was debunked.

Does that explain it? Hmm..looks more like I have nothing to say to counter it.


The Supreme Court said otherwise. I do not have that responsibility and authority. You do not have that responsibility and authority. The Supreme Court has it and they exercised it in accordance with their Constitutional duties in the White case. That is the case and there is nothing you can do about it.

Meaning they are not human and can never be wrong. How stupid.
 
Does that explain it? Hmm..looks more like I have nothing to say to counter it.




Meaning they are not human and can never be wrong. How stupid.

What you opt to label as Wrong is a value laden subjective term based on your own belief system. You have a right to BELIEVE what you choose to BELIEVE simply because you want to BELEIVE it. But that has nothing at all to do with right and wrong. It has only to do with what you BELIEVE.
 
I gave a factual based understanding of the clauses referenced, the powers behind them, and the proper understanding of how the country was formed correcting Chase on all counts of his opinion.
It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court ruled secession illegal. It's illegal. Disagree with its decision all you want. IT IS ILLEGAL.

When you change your mind of what clauses mean it does dismiss you and your understanding of what such clauses, yes. The only other understanding you can come to is that he learned more about the subject, but that would just mean he was wrong in 1869 and right in 1875, which would harm you greatly. Either way you are ****ed here.
Can you give me a PRIMARY SOURCE link to the Chase quote that you believe supports your position? Because I've never seen it.

I debunked their opinions based on the constitution itself and the founders thoughts on it. This what you do when you are arguing against court rulings.
You disagreed with their opinions. Unfortunately, you're not a Supreme Court justice so your opinion matters as much to the law as a pro-lifer who disagrees with Roe v. Wade.

I gave reasoning behind everything I said, as have everyone else. There is little point in going over it again. You just have to argue against it for a change instead of just repeating yourself without facing any counter arguments that might harm you.
You gave reasoning for your disagreements. You haven't debunked anything. Learn the difference between "debunk" and "disagree" and your posts might become more serious. All of my arguments have been completely valid. They are arguments based on primary source documentation including the Supreme Court, presidents, declarations of secession, et al. Telling me that I don't "face any counter arguments" is incredibly dishonest. I have faced every single counter argument presented to me and have refused to present anything less than primary source documentation to support my position. If you can't even acknowledge that, you have absolutely zero credit.

I provide primary sources, honest interpretations of them supported by the SC and historians, acknowledge the relativity of the topics we're discussing and refuse to distort people's arguments. You and others on your side have done the exact opposite of that over and over again (aside from providing a few primary sources) which makes your attacks on my debating laughable.

Unless you can show how I am wrong, and how the founders can be wrong about what they wrote you have no case other than yourself.
Hey, the Supreme Court already did that. Your beef is with them just like the pro-lifer's beef. Don't shoot the messenger.
 
Last edited:
In all fairness to Henrin, what he fails to realize is this
1- your post was read
2- your ideas were considered
3- they were dealt with and discussed
4- your points were dismissed as less than valid or irrelevant or just plain wrong in the context of history
5- you are simply incorrect

That is what I meant when I said Henrin was debunked.

If you mean "his" and not "your," I agree. Or is there a gap in the logic of my anti-Confederacy position?

for example



The Supreme Court said otherwise. I do not have that responsibility and authority. You do not have that responsibility and authority. The Supreme Court has it and they exercised it in accordance with their Constitutional duties in the White case. That is the case and there is nothing you can do about it.

BINGO. We, as American citizens, have every right to disagree with a Court decision. But we do not have the right to disobey it. Texas v. White is a legally binding precedent, whether the sympathizers want to admit it or not. When it comes to the legality of secession, there is absolutely nothing to debate. It makes about as much sense to argue that the Earth is flat or that gravity doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
If you mean "his" and not "your," I agree. Or is their a gap in the logic of my anti-Confederacy position?



BINGO. We, as American citizens, have every right to disagree with a Court decision. But we do not have the right to disobey it. Texas v. White is a legally binding precedent, whether the sympathizers want to admit it or not. When it comes to the legality of secession, there is absolutely nothing to debate. It makes about as much sense to argue that the Earth is flat or that gravity doesn't exist.

Yes, when I refer to YOUR in that line to Henrin I am speaking to his ideas and his posts. Sorry if I was not clear or (worse) clumsy in my structure.
 
and the same thing applies to apdst


In all fairness to you, what you fail to realize is this
1- your post was read
2- your ideas were considered
3- they were dealt with and discussed
4- your points were dismissed as less than valid or irrelevant or just plain wrong in the context of history
5- you are simply incorrect

You failed to prove me wrong. You et. al. simply resorted to personal attacks and insults, oh and YahooAnswers, as your proof that I'm wrong.
 
You failed to prove me wrong. You et. al. simply resorted to personal attacks and insults, oh and YahooAnswers, as your proof that I'm wrong.

Prove you wrong in what way... on what issue? You through out these vague and meaningless all sweeping statements and they just sit there like a fifty pound burrito.


apdst - your repeated whining about using yahoo answers as a source is at best humorous and at worst rather sad.

The information I took from it was regarding just who in the South owned slaves. Here is the information from yahoo answers

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.


You do not like this because it disagrees with your white supremacist sites and the ravings of convicted murderers that you use for your supposed numbers.

However, before you go attacking yahoo answers, lets see what other sources say about the validity of this information

1- this article on Wikipedia uses the source Distribution of Slaves in US History

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

it confirms the numbers from yahoo answers as follows:

Only 8% of all US families owned slaves,[124] while in the South, 33% of families owned slaves and 50% of Confederate soldiers lived in slave-owning households


2 - This book length excellent study of the soldiers who made up the confederate army confirms the information

http://www.amazon.com/General-Lees-A...6825358&sr=1-1

Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.
The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.
More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,600) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership. By comparison, only one in twelve enlisted men owned slaves, but when those who lived with family slave owners were included, the ratio exceeded one in three. That was 40 percent above the tally for all households in the Old South. With the inclusion of those who resided in nonfamily slaveholding households, the direct exposure to bondage among enlisted personnel was four of every nine. Enlisted men owned less wealth, with combined levels of $1,125 for the median and $7,079 for the average, but those numbers indicated a fairly comfortable standard of living. Proportionately, far more officers were likely to be professionals in civil life, and their age difference, about four years older than enlisted men, reflected their greater accumulated wealth.


3 -The Historic Census Browser from the University of Virginia also confirms the numbers from yahoo answers that you are so disparaging of

University of Virginia Library
here is a description of their findings

The Historical Census Browser from the University of Virginia Library allows users to compile, sort and visualize data from U.S. Censuses from 1790 to 1960. For Glatthaar's purposes and ours, the 1860 census, taken a few months before the outbreak of the war, is crucial. It records basic data about the free population, including names, sex, approximate age, occupation and value of real and personal property of each person in a household. A second, separate schedule records the name of each slaveholder and lists the slave he or she owns. Each slave is listed by sex and age; names were not recorded. The data in the UofV online system can be broken down either by state or counties within a state, and make it possible to compare one data element (e.g., households) with another (slaveholders) and calculate the proportions between them.

In the vast majority of cases, each household (termed a "family" in the 1860 document, even when the group consisted of unrelated people living in the same residence) that owned slaves had only one slaveholder listed, the head of the household. It is thus possible to compare the number of slaveholders in a given state to the numbers of families/households, and get a rough estimation of the proportion of free households that owned at least one slave. The numbers varies considerably, ranging from 1 in 5 in Arkansas to 1 in 2 in Mississippi and South Carolina. In the eleven states that formed the Confederacy, there were in aggregate just over 1 million free households, which between them represented 316,632 slaveholders—meaning that just under one-third of households in the Confederate States counted among its assets at least one human being.


So there you have three different sources of information, all mainstream respected sources - NOT white supremacist sites written by murderers and extremists - which confirm the information from yahoo answers.
 
Last edited:
Already did. You argued the flag only means X where X is what Southerners claim it is. If it only means X, it can't mean Y where Y is what non-Southerners are arguing it is.


What is this question? It means everything that it is just like the Confederate flag does - good and bad.

That is why I said I am not a Southerner... why is that relevant, because it is not just Southerners that think that the Confederate Flag can be a non-racist non-treasonist non-slavery wanting symbol. So you did not. You assumed or made some other false presumption about why i said what I said instead of dealing with the issue. The issue is perception of the flag by all people, not just Southerners.
 
You assumed or made some other false presumption about why i said what I said instead of dealing with the issue.
Let's look at what you said then:

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.

Let me amend my statement from

Oh I see, so only Southerners can have a valid opinion of the Confederate Flag. I think not.

It's a symbol of treason, slavery and racism in addition to a symbol of people's history, states' rights and whatever else.

To

Oh I see, so any opinion that holds the CF is anything other than "simply a symbol of the South" is "making more than it is". I think not.

It's a symbol of treason, slavery and racism in addition to a symbol of people's history, states' rights and whatever else.


It doesn't matter how you twist it. Your comment is just as ridiculous now as it was when you posted it.
 
Tell that to yourself sweetheart.

WOW... ridiculously childish behaviour at its finest! Good for you...

Oh I see, so any opinion that holds the CF is anything other than "simply a symbol of the South" is "making more than it is". I think not.

It's a symbol of treason, slavery and racism in addition to a symbol of people's history, states' rights and whatever else.


It doesn't matter how you twist it. Your comment is just as ridiculous now as it was when you posted it.

It is about perception and context. Two things that are beyond your ability to discern apparently. :lol:

Your thoughts only promote hate. Your thoughts only promote division. Your thoughts are a pathetic thing that only moral evolution could eradicate. Once you evolve intellectually and morally you will one day see how trivial your opinion once was.
 
Let's turn things around a little: is the Confederate flag a symbol of patriotism for and loyalty to, the United States?
 
WOW... ridiculously childish behaviour at its finest! Good for you....

That's weird, because my comment was directly in response to you saying:
I put out nothing but respect for you... some only see what they want to see buddy boy.

Like I said, you get what you put out. So your drivel ridden response to me means one of two things: You're either dishonest or trolling. Either one completely changes my perception of you and puts your posts on the "not serious or intelligent" list. Have fun with that.
 
Let's turn things around a little: is the Confederate flag a symbol of patriotism for and loyalty to, the United States?

That is irrelevant.
 
If you mean "his" and not "your," I agree. Or is there a gap in the logic of my anti-Confederacy position?



BINGO. We, as American citizens, have every right to disagree with a Court decision. But we do not have the right to disobey it. Texas v. White is a legally binding precedent, whether the sympathizers want to admit it or not. When it comes to the legality of secession, there is absolutely nothing to debate. It makes about as much sense to argue that the Earth is flat or that gravity doesn't exist.

Precedent is a horrible idea, and its by itself is NOT legally binding, idiot. It is the court cases decisions themselves that is LEGALLY binding, you ****ing dullard. Second, people have argued against court opinions, and in extension their decisions since the beginning of the country. Hell, Madison himself, the ****ing author disputed a decision in his time. A decision even got a court justice removed because of how unfounded it was. Maybe you should learn your history for a change instead of just parroting bull**** with no real basis?

As for Playdrive demanding referencing, he can read the federalist papers or any other paper written on the topic, the clauses, etc by the founders. He is a dullard, just like you.
 
As for Playdrive demanding referencing, he can read the federalist papers or any other paper written on the topic, the clauses, etc by the founders. He is a dullard, just like you.
I never said anything about the federalist papers. I just said the Supreme Court ruled secession treason and illegal. It did. The federalist papers have nothing to do with that. Sorry. :shrug:

Personal attack noted. I guess that what's you do when the SC says something you don't like - shoot the messenger.
 
You miss my point, though. What exactly does the Constitution prohibit states from doing, other than a few restrictions at the end of Article I?

Not much. As you say, there are restrictions placed on member states in article I. If I miss your point, what is it?

Again, because the Constitution doesn't require states to outlaw murder and arson, they can make them legal. At least, by your logic, that's what could happen.

Yes, that is in the nature of a sovereign state. Any sovereign state could make murder legal. However, I'm not sure how many sovereign states in the world actually make murder and rape legal.

You question the authority of the Supreme Court? On what grounds?

On the grounds that it is absurd for the states' agent to be the judge of exactly what power it has over the states that created it. Also, their decision is not based on any of the enumerated powers delegated to the federation by the states.

-The Articles of Confederation (which, though not directly a part of the Constitution, was its predecessor, and goes into greater length about states' joining the US)

Were dissolved and are no longer applicable.

-The responsibility of every state to provide for a republican form of government (with the implication that said government can't just bail out when it wants)

Correct, every state in the union, per their agreement, must maintain a republican form of government. This restriction only applies to states actually in the union, not states that are not members of the union.

-The power of Congress to suppress insurrections

At the request of the governor of a state.

Interestingly, they could have entertained the "necessary and proper" clause but didn't feel that they needed to go that far.

Or perhaps the commerce clause...
 
That's weird, because my comment was directly in response to you saying:

Irrelevant when you started with the petty crap...

Like I said, you get what you put out. So your drivel ridden response to me means one of two things: You're either dishonest or trolling. Either one completely changes my perception of you and puts your posts on the "not serious or intelligent" list. Have fun with that.

:lol: So the guy that whines pathetically about my initial statement regarding the potnetially benign nature of the CF is now focused solely on my response to his disrespectful tripe? Untwist your panties, grow some balls and take a step back and just see how ridiculous you are being for a second.

Again: Your thoughts only promote hate. Your thoughts only promote division. Your thoughts are a pathetic thing that only moral evolution could eradicate. Once you evolve intellectually and morally you will one day see how trivial your opinion once was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom