• 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.
Hatuey said:
What a ridiculous nonsequitur. Colonial governments, you know the precursor to 'state governments', came into existence out of a need to better distribute the resources of the colonial whole. As such, while each of them had their own merits exemptions etc, they were seen as part of a whole. Furthermore, destroying the "mini-countries" argument is the fact that the US didn't come to experience any real regionalism until the 19th century. So how in Buddha's green earth could there have a notion that each state was its own entity? If you really want to make the case that each state was its own individual "mini-country" why did we create a FEDERATION and not a CONFEDERATION? Do you know the difference between the two?
Click to expand...

We didn't create either a Federation or a Confederation. We created a Union. Do you know the difference?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
If you really want to make the case that each state was its own individual "mini-country" why did we create a FEDERATION and not a CONFEDERATION? Do you know the difference between the two?
Click to expand...

No, I don't know the difference. What is it?
 
Centinel said:
My point is that there is no constitutional prohibition against any of the member states leaving the federation. If you can point me to any such prohibition, please do so.
Click to expand...

So.... the.... ****.... what? The Constitution isn't by any stretch of the imagination the only document which should be looked at on political matters.
 
Hatuey said:
Okay, you're now talking a whole bunch of nonsense. The Somali flag and the Bonnie flag are two completely different things and the Somalis DID NOT adopt the Bonnie Flag. You're looking like an ignorant fool at the mere suggestion of such a retardtastic idea.



Do you mean ellipsis? Episcopalians are a religious denomination.
Click to expand...

Ok, whatever: How many Episcopalians do we have?
 
Hatuey said:
So.... the.... ****.... what? The Constitution isn't by any stretch of the imagination the only document which should be looked at on political matters.
Click to expand...

Especially when it doesn't go your way. Huh? :lamo
 
Hatuey said:
So.... the.... ****.... what? The Constitution isn't by any stretch of the imagination the only document which should be looked at on political matters.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm picking up what you're laying down. Can you rephrase in English?
 
Centinel said:
No, I don't know the difference. What is it?
Click to expand...

The word sovereign is the key difference. A confederation establishes that the states joining are SOVEREIGN whereas a federation makes it clear that the members are partially self-governing & subservient to a federal government. This is political science 101.
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
I'm not sure I'm picking up what you're laying down. Can you rephrase in English?
Click to expand...

What he's saying, is that when a document doesn't support your agenda, it should be used as toilet paper and, when it does support your agenda, it's suddenly the law of the land.

Notice how we need to look at other documents, aside from the Constitution, when addressing secession, but the Constitution is the law of the land when we're talking about gay marriage and abortion?
 
apdst said:
What he's saying, is that when a document doesn't support your agenda, it should be used as toilet paper and, when it does support your agenda, it's suddenly the law of the land.

Notice how we need to look at other documents, aside from the Constitution, when addressing secession, but the Constitution is the law of the land when we're talking about gay marriage and abortion?
Click to expand...

Apdst win the award for dumbest red herring, strawman and overall nonsensical argument on the forum. Congratulations apdst. Come on up and claim your prize. It's a Somali flag NOT inspired by some obscure flag flying in your backyard.
 
Hatuey said:
The word sovereign is the key difference. A confederation establishes that the states joining are SOVEREIGN whereas a federation makes it clear that the members are partially self-governing & subservient to a federal government. This is political science 101.
Click to expand...

The states prior to their entry into the union were sovereign nation states. Thus, by your definition, our union is a confederation.
 
Hatuey said:
The word sovereign is the key difference. A confederation establishes that the states joining are SOVEREIGN whereas a federation makes it clear that the members are partially self-governing & subservient to a federal government. This is political science 101.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason the Confederate states seceded. They no longer wanted to be subservient to the laws that were being forced upon them; also the reason that New England planned to secede in 1804 and New Hampshire created a secession plan in 2009. How come no one is jacked up about the New Hampshire secession bill?
 
apdst said:
What he's saying, is that when a document doesn't support your agenda, it should be used as toilet paper and, when it does support your agenda, it's suddenly the law of the land.

Notice how we need to look at other documents, aside from the Constitution, when addressing secession, but the Constitution is the law of the land when we're talking about gay marriage and abortion?
Click to expand...

<Arnold mode>Das a Good One</Arnold mode>
 
whysoserious said:
All apologies, it appears I killed this thread with the introduction of facts and logic.
Click to expand...

Yep, we've already established that slavery was one of the reasons, but the primary reason is to establish their own political sphere, apart from that of the north.
All the puffery and fluff of "official declarations" is propaganda.
 
Centinel said:
The states prior to their entry into the union were sovereign nation states.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The 13 colonies declared their independence as a single entity so at no point before OR after creation of this country did they see themselves as individuals in any sense of the word. Do you not realize this yet? That there is no point in the history of the 13 colonies where any of them could have seen themselves or even acted as sovereign states? If so show me how? Where do they develop this sense of individualism? Under British control? Impossible. In the 8 years of war? Highly unlikely. So where and under which conditions do these "sovereign" states begin to see themselves as sovereigns? There is absolutely no point in even trying to come up with an answer because there simply isn't one.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Nonsense. The 13 colonies declared their independence as a single entity so at no point before OR after creation of this country did they see themselves as individuals in any sense of the word. Do you not realize this yet? That there is no point in the history of the 13 colonies where any of them could have seen themselves or even acted as sovereign states? If so show me how? Where do they develop this sense of individualism? Under British control? Impossible. In the 8 years of war? Highly unlikely. So where and under which conditions do these "sovereign" states begin to see themselves as sovereigns? There is absolutely no point in even trying to come up with an answer because there simply isn't one.
Click to expand...

The 13 colonies declared their independence as a union of states...oh, wait...did I just say, union?
 
apdst said:
The 13 colonies declared their independence as a union of states...oh, wait...did I just say, union?
Click to expand...

The very name given to our 50 states implies that they were meant to have some significant degree of self governance.
Otherwise they'd of been called the 50 territories, the 50 provinces, etc.
 
apdst said:
Hence the reason the Confederate states seceded.
Click to expand...

Yes and committed treason as they tried to carve out FEDERAL territory that did not belong to them.

They no longer wanted to be subservient to the laws that were being forced upon them;
Click to expand...

Like that pesky one involving slavery.

also the reason that New England planned to secede in 1804
Click to expand...

No. It did not. Secession was discussed, hardly a "plan" as nothing came out of it. Ever.

and New Hampshire created a secession plan in 2009. How come no one is jacked up about the New Hampshire secession bill?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because nobody cares about your dumb little factoids that only seem to be relevant in that bizarro world you live in. :shrug:
 
apdst said:
The 13 colonies declared their independence as a union of states...oh, wait...did I just say, union?
Click to expand...

Yes a union of partially self governing states under a federal government. Your irrelevant ass just described what a federal state, which is what we are to this day, is.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yep, we've already established that slavery was one of the reasons, but the primary reason is to establish their own political sphere, apart from that of the north.
All the puffery and fluff of "official declarations" is propaganda.
Click to expand...

You consider using the actual words of the groups that seceded to be propaganda? Really? Sorry, Harry, but I'd say you're the one using propaganda considering you are putting your own words in their mouths. I quoted them directly (and almost every word was related to slavery), you have done nothing of the such.

*Edit: Please, Harry, tell me you were joking that you said I was using propaganda by quoting the actual people.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Nonsense. The 13 colonies declared their independence as a single entity so at no point before OR after creation of this country did they see themselves as individuals in any sense of the word. Do you not realize this yet? That there is no point in the history of the 13 colonies where any of them could have seen themselves or even acted as sovereign states? If so show me how? Where do they develop this sense of individualism? Under British control? Impossible. In the 8 years of war? Highly unlikely. So where and under which conditions do these "sovereign" states begin to see themselves as sovereigns? There is absolutely no point in even trying to come up with an answer because there simply isn't one.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I'd suggest reading this....

A Constitutional History of the United States: By Andrew C. McLaughlin
 
Hatuey said:
Yes a union of partially self governing states under a federal government. Your irrelevant ass just described what a federal state, which is what we are to this day, is.
Click to expand...

You can't let his lack of logic get to you. Apdst is famous on this board for his inability to understand even the most rudimentary of concepts. When you debate him, do what I do, consider it a pleasure to be talking with someone who makes you look so smart and enjoy the comic relief you get from the responses.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes and committed treason as they tried to carve out FEDERAL territory that did not belong to them.
Click to expand...

No, it was state territory, actually. The Comfederacy didn't attempt to go after territories that weren't already states. You do know the difference, yes?



Like that pesky one involving slavery.
Click to expand...

Or, in reality, "property rights".



No. It did not. Secession was discussed, hardly a "plan" as nothing came out of it. Ever.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of sedition? I'm thinking you haven't.



Maybe it's because nobody cares about your dumb little factoids that only seem to be relevant in that bizarro world you live in. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Especially when they prove you're wrong. Yes?
 
Hatuey said:
Yes a union of partially self governing states under a federal government. Your irrelevant ass just described what a federal state, which is what we are to this day, is.
Click to expand...

But, still a union of states and not an entity, as you suggested earlier.
 
whysoserious said:
You consider using the actual words of the groups that seceded to be propaganda? Really? Sorry, Harry, but I'd say you're the one using propaganda considering you are putting your own words in their mouths. I quoted them directly (and almost every word was related to slavery), you have done nothing of the such.

*Edit: Please, Harry, tell me you were joking that you said I was using propaganda by quoting the actual people.
Click to expand...

It is propaganda.
Just like the American Declaration of Independence.

It is meant to continue to draw support, for "the cause."

The South saw that their political power was decreasing, especially with the election of a 3rd party (Republicans).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom