• 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.
Thrilla said:
ahh yes, you are just pointing out the irony..sure sure...
i'm quite certain you didn't mean to impugn conservatives patriotism, which is why you go to lengths to point out that conservatives fly a treasonous symbol.
Click to expand...
You clearly aren't willing to understand what I am saying and instead have decided, for whatever reason, to create an argument for me that does not exist. If I thought people who flew the flag were treasonous, I would say so and I would defend my argument. I have no idea why you think I would hide my opinion. I think it's quite clear that I am not the sort to do that. But if you need to believe in the image of me that you have created, go for it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Show me one post in this thread that shows one person defending slavery.

As for the treason charges, learn your history. No treason was committed during the secession. I've already given one link about the Constitutions history (post 296) and have explained what happened in numerous other posts. Indeed me and teamosil have been having a delightful conversation about the whole thing.
Click to expand...

When somebody like apdst keeps repeating the meme that you cannot judge this by today but must put yourself in the mindset of the southern slave owner in the 1850's to properly understand that this is only a property rights issue, YES, that is justification and defense of slavery and lets not make a mistake by judging it otherwise.

Originally Posted by LaMidRighter
apsdt has made the point before that too many people are applying our modern thinking of the subject incorrectly to the topic and he is correct. Now, I don't think most owners had malicious intent towards their slaves and my comments along with apdst's don't mean we condone the line of thinking but rather it was the prevailing thought of the day.
Click to expand...

Attempting to destroy the United States of America by destroying the union of the States, forming an enemy nation, and then taking up arms in a war against the USA is indeed treason.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Those who would justify slavery defending its use and defend treason committed against the USA. You cannot get more of an enemy than that.

And I do not mean ENEMY in the sense that we declare war upon them and hunt them down. To know them for what they are and to brand them as such is enough.
Click to expand...

not many defenders of slavery around... and certainly none here that I can discern.
so that leaves your idea of treason... and I think we have different ideas about treason.
treason , to me, is kinda like homicide... sometimes it's good , sometimes it's bad.

we, as a nation, celebrate treason and traitors every 4th of July.... so it's rather difficult from me to understand how traitors are inherently "the enemy".
 
PeteEU said:
Treason is defined by the victors in a civil conflict. Going against the state with violence is treason. What the South did was treason against the United States of America. That the US did not per sue this course of action against the people of the South is another matter.
Click to expand...

The south seceeded peacefully. They made no attempt to cause violence to the Union until the Battle of Fort Sumpter. Which was stationed in a southern state. The only reason that it remained a Union controlled fort at the time was due to the simple fact that it was occupied by those that considered themselvse to be still a part of the Union. The general that percepitated that fight had no intention of invading Union soil. He just wanted to make sure that the Union did not have troops inside what was considered Southern state territory. Which is purely understandable from an objective standpoint especially when you consider that the fort was indeed clearly in South Carolina's territory.
 
Thrilla said:
not many defenders of slavery around... and certainly none here that I can discern.
so that leaves your idea of treason... and I think we have different ideas about treason.
treason , to me, is kinda like homicide... sometimes it's good , sometimes it's bad.

we, as a nation, celebrate treason and traitors every 4th of July.... so it's rather difficult from me to understand how traitors are inherently "the enemy".
Click to expand...

You have the right to see it as you see it. I see a fundamental difference in what happened in 1776 and what happened in 1861. And I see what happened in 1861 indeed as very very bad. Taking up arms against the United States of America when you yourself are an American, is indeed treason.
 
haymarket said:
When somebody like apdst keeps repeating the meme that you cannot judge this by today but must put yourself in the mindset of the southern slave owner in the 1850's to properly understand that this is only a property rights issue, YES, that is justification and defense of slavery and lets not make a mistake by judging it otherwise.
Click to expand...

Any anthropologist or historian will tell you to do the same thing that apdst and I have said. In order to understand the social and economic practices and what led to what of a historical time period you have to put yourself in that societies shoes. We can still consider the practice dispciable today and yet still understand the thinking that allowed slavery to be in the history books. In essence...understanding does not equal agreeing with.

haymarket said:
Attempting to destroy the United States of America by destroying the union of the States, forming an enemy nation, and then taking up arms in a war against the USA is indeed treason.
Click to expand...

I will ask you the same question that I have already proposed in this thread to others. Would you consider withdrawing from the UN an act of treason if the UN attempted to enact something that would be of extreme detriment to the US?

The Southern States never wanted to be an enemy nation nor did they attempt to destroy the Union. The taking up of arms was also explained in my last post.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You have the right to see it as you see it. I see a fundamental difference in what happened in 1776 and what happened in 1861. And I see what happened in 1861 indeed as very very bad. Taking up arms against the United States of America when you yourself are an American, is indeed treason.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing though. The southern states did not consider themselves to be an American. They had seceeded remember?
 
Kal'Stang said:
The south seceeded peacefully. They made no attempt to cause violence to the Union until the Battle of Fort Sumpter. Which was stationed in a southern state. The only reason that it remained a Union controlled fort at the time was due to the simple fact that it was occupied by those that considered themselvse to be still a part of the Union. The general that percepitated that fight had no intention of invading Union soil. He just wanted to make sure that the Union did not have troops inside what was considered Southern state territory. Which is purely understandable from an objective standpoint especially when you consider that the fort was indeed clearly in South Carolina's territory.
Click to expand...
The South made the first violent act of the Civil War with Fort Sumter. It didn't secede peacefully. Whether or not their actions were 'understandable' is irrelevant to whether or not their actions were violent. They were. They initiated the war and I have no idea why you're trying to pretend they didn't.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Thats the thing though. The southern states did not consider themselves to be an American. They had seceeded remember?
Click to expand...
That's called treason. Some American spies for Russia probably didn't consider themselves American either. It doesn't change the fact they were traitors.
 
haymarket said:
You have the right to see it as you see it. I see a fundamental difference in what happened in 1776 and what happened in 1861. And I see what happened in 1861 indeed as very very bad. Taking up arms against the United States of America when you yourself are an American, is indeed treason.
Click to expand...
no, there wasn't a fundamental difference.... there were differences in details, but the fundamentals are identical.

I'm quite certain loyalists in 1776 shared your disdain for treason...I'm quite certain there a Russian loyalists, in modern times, who share it too.
it's not an uncommon sentiment throughout the history of the world... it's not illegitimate.
I find that it borders in illegitimate only when people hold freedom, liberty, and self determination as virtues, though.
 
teamosil said:
Yeah. I mean, we declared independence five years before the articles were ratified, but we didn't really have independence free and clear until two years after they were ratified. They probably started thinking of themselves as sovereign states when they declared independence, but in reality they never really existed as independent states. They were already part of the union before they were really independent.

But I don't think that's the question you should be asking. The question you should be asking is- were it not for the constitution or the articles of confederation, would they have been sovereign states? And the answer to that is probably yes.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but the facts don't seem to support your argument.

Prior to forming their compact, the states were sovereign independent nation-states. They all recognized each others sovereignty and independence, as evidenced by the language in the articles of confederation.

The constitution, like the articles before it, represents a voluntary compact among the states who joined. No state ever declared that they were relinquishing their sovereignty or their right to leave the union. In fact, several states made a point of expressly stating that they retained the right to leave if they wished.

These are the facts. If you can show me where any of the states relinquished their sovereignty, please do so.
 
theplaydrive said:
The South made the first violent act of the Civil War with Fort Sumter. It didn't secede peacefully. Whether or not their actions were 'understandable' is irrelevant to whether or not their actions were violent. They were. They initiated the war and I have no idea why you're trying to pretend they didn't.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that I am trying to say that they didn't? The Battle of Fort Sumpter happened because of a Confederate General. That is what sparked the Civil War. I have never said anything different.

However think on this. That same general had asked for the Union Troops in that fort to withdraw from what was considered South Carolina's territory. Which history and location shows that the fort clearly was in the Souths territory after secession. He was not going to arrest them. He was going to let them go home. The Commander of the Union troops refused. In order to prevent a protracted standoff he had to act before supplies could reach the fort via water.

What would have happened had the commander of the Union troops left the fort? The answer is obvious if you studied what was going on leading up to the Civil War....No war would have happened. Lincoln did not want the Civil War and neither did the Southern States. But it did happen. All due to a Confederate General that wanted Union soldiers off of Southern state territory and a stubborn Union commander. When you look back the arguement could be made that both sides were at fault. Not just the one.
 
theplaydrive said:
That's called treason. Some American spies for Russia probably didn't consider themselves American either. It doesn't change the fact they were traitors.
Click to expand...

No its not called treason. Again, if we withdrew from the UN would you consider it treason? The same thing applies.
 
Centinel said:
I'm sorry but the facts don't seem to support your argument.

Prior to forming their compact, the states were sovereign independent nation-states. They all recognized each others sovereignty and independence, as evidenced by the language in the articles of confederation.

The constitution, like the articles before it, represents a voluntary compact among the states who joined. No state ever declared that they were relinquishing their sovereignty or their right to leave the union. In fact, several states made a point of expressly stating that they retained the right to leave if they wished.

These are the facts. If you can show me where any of the states relinquished their sovereignty, please do so.
Click to expand...

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Click to expand...
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Confederate States was an illegal organization, within the provision of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting any treaty, alliance, or confederation of one state with another, whatever efficacy, therefore, its enactments possessed in any state entering into that organization must be attributed to the sanction given to them by that state.
Click to expand...

WILLIAMS V. BRUFFY, 96 U. S. 176 :: Volume 96 :: 1877 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
No its not called treason. Again, if we withdrew from the UN would you consider it treason? The same thing applies.
Click to expand...
It's not the same thing at all and it's a bit annoying and insulting that you're pretending it is. This wasn't an international situation - that's why it was called a "civil war". It was a war between citizens of the same country. It is treason for citizens of a country to wage war upon its country.

The UN comparison is so inaccurate on so many levels.
 
Centinel said:
I'm sorry but the facts don't seem to support your argument.

Prior to forming their compact, the states were sovereign independent nation-states. They all recognized each others sovereignty and independence, as evidenced by the language in the articles of confederation.

The constitution, like the articles before it, represents a voluntary compact among the states who joined. No state ever declared that they were relinquishing their sovereignty or their right to leave the union. In fact, several states made a point of expressly stating that they retained the right to leave if they wished.

These are the facts. If you can show me where any of the states relinquished their sovereignty, please do so.
Click to expand...

The very first sentence of the Constitution is "We the People, in order to form a more perfect union." not "We the States, in order to form an agreeable arrangement." The implication being that the people were one nation, and what they were forming was a "more perfect union" to bring them together.

Basically, you don't give a **** about the Constitution. You see it as nothing more than a temporary and convenient arrangement to meet the needs of 13 colonies in the 1780s with major colonial powers breathing down their neck. If that was the case, it would have been discarded once the geopolitical situation changed.
 
theplaydrive said:
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net



WILLIAMS V. BRUFFY, 96 U. S. 176 :: Volume 96 :: 1877 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
Click to expand...

Your point?

1: that court ruling there was obviously done in a biased manner. After all...that court was a part of the Union.

2: That part of the Constitution would only apply if the State in question was still a part of the Union. Since they seceeded they were no longer bound by the Constitution. The very fact that the Southern states had to reapply for admission into the Union shows that their secession was accepted. The very fact that before they reapplied for admission they were not allowed to have representitives inside Congress also shows the same thing. If the secession had been rejected then those states, at the very least, should have had continued representitive status within the Congress as per the Constitution.
 
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Click to expand...

These rules apply to the states in the union. States that are not in the union obviously are not governed by the constitution.

States never relinquished their sovereignty, and the constitution has no provision that prevents states from leaving. There's no legal prohibition on any state leaving the union.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What makes you think that I am trying to say that they didn't? The Battle of Fort Sumpter happened because of a Confederate General. That is what sparked the Civil War. I have never said anything different.
Click to expand...
You said:
Kal'Stang said:
The south seceeded peacefully.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. They didn't.

However think on this. That same general had asked for the Union Troops in that fort to withdraw from what was considered South Carolina's territory. Which history and location shows that the fort clearly was in the Souths territory after secession. He was not going to arrest them. He was going to let them go home. The Commander of the Union troops refused. In order to prevent a protracted standoff he had to act before supplies could reach the fort via water.

What would have happened had the commander of the Union troops left the fort? The answer is obvious if you studied what was going on leading up to the Civil War....No war would have happened. Lincoln did not want the Civil War and neither did the Southern States. But it did happen. All due to a Confederate General that wanted Union soldiers off of Southern state territory and a stubborn Union commander. When you look back the arguement could be made that both sides were at fault. Not just the one.
Click to expand...
Think on this. What would have happened if the Confederates had just walked away? The Union and the Confederacy considered that territory its territory. One group chose to start violence.
 
Centinel said:
These rules apply to the states in the union. States that are not in the union obviously are not governed by the constitution.

States never relinquished their sovereignty, and the constitution has no provision that prevents states from leaving. There's no legal prohibition on any state leaving the union.
Click to expand...

Then I guess we should just get it over with. It's not the "United States." It's the "Temporarily Aligned States."
 
Listen, folks. I think the Confederate flag is sort of an off-color thing to celebrate. I really don't get it. At all.

But.

Regardless of whatever historical argument you guys are having (please, coming from the ancestors of British traitors... are you guys serious?), even if we are to make the leap to treason, I can't help but think the most fundamental tenet of what the US is about would be ok with that under the right circumstances.

What is more important? The hunk of dirt, or what's right?

The Civil War was about a lot more than slavery. Even if it hadn't been, keep in mind the Constitution you guys keep going back to was written by slave-owners.

Whatever you think of the Confederacy and what they fought for, they were evidently doing it because they thought it was right. And while sanity seems to come from the North, passion has always come from the South.

Whatever the law says, whatever obscure technicalities your bickering may lead to, here's the simple fact: we are a nation built on treason, that draws its ethics from doing what it believes is right, not necessarily what is condoned. And if the Confederacy thought it was right enough and the Union was wrong enough to go to war over it, I can respect that... even if I personally think they're crazy.

The 2nd amendment of our Constitution ensures that citizens will be able to defend themselves with deadly force against the government. Think about that. That's the kind of country we are. We're the kind of country that will go vigilante on your ass if we think you deserve it, and we're Constitutionally entitled to do so.

All the Confederacy really did was execute their 2nd amendment right on a mass scale after being denied sovereignty by an adorably hopeful but ultimately naive Union.

I still think they're crazy. But I also think those of you screaming "treason!" are hacks.
 
rocket88 said:
The very first sentence of the Constitution is "We the People, in order to form a more perfect union." not "We the States, in order to form an agreeable arrangement." The implication being that the people were one nation, and what they were forming was a "more perfect union" to bring them together.
Click to expand...

Get the quote right.
 
rocket88 said:
Then I guess we should just get it over with. It's not the "United States." It's the "Temporarily Aligned States."
Click to expand...

That may be one way to look at it. That's what a federation is.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
All the Confederacy really did was execute their 2nd amendment right on a mass scale after being denied sovereignty by an adorably hopeful but ultimately naive Union.

I still think they're crazy. But I also think those of you screaming "treason!" are hacks.
Click to expand...

What would you say if a militia in Montana suddenly opened fire on a border crossing and declared themselves part of Canada?
 
Centinel said:
These rules apply to the states in the union. States that are not in the union obviously are not governed by the constitution.

States never relinquished their sovereignty, and the constitution has no provision that prevents states from leaving. There's no legal prohibition on any state leaving the union.
Click to expand...
The Confederate states were in the Union before they established the Confederacy. They were states that established a confederation. That is the point.

It is unnecessary to pursue the subject further. Whatever de facto character may be ascribed to the Confederate government consists solely in the fact, that it maintained a contest with the United States for nearly four years, and dominated for that period over a large extent of territory. When its military forces were overthrown, it utterly perished, and with it all its enactments. Whilst it existed, it was regarded, as said in Thorington v. Smith, 'as simply the military representative of the insurrection against the authority of the United States.' 8 Wall. 1; Keppel's Adm'rs v. Petersburg Railroad Co., Chase's Decisions, 167.

Whilst thus holding that there was no validity in any legislation of the Confederate States which this court can recognize, it is proper to observe that the legislation of the States stands on very different grounds. The same general form of governments, the same general laws for the administration of justice and the protection of private rights, which had existed in the State prior to the rebellion, remained during its continuance and afterwards. As far as the acts of the States did not impair, or tend to impair, the supremacy of the national authority, or the just rights of citizens under the Constitution, they are, in general, to be treated as valid and binding.

96 U.S. 176
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom