• 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.
Essentially, what all of you pro-Confederacy people are saying is that if you say something is yours, it's yours. That's not how property rights have ever worked. That's not how independence has ever worked. Many groups have declared their independence without every acquiring it. The Confederacy falls under that category. The declared it, but never got it. Why on Earth you're trying to pretend that they're immune from the reality that all those other groups exist in is beyond me.

I am not Pro-Confederacy.
 
Essentially, what all of you pro-Confederacy people are saying is that if you say something is yours, it's yours. That's not how property rights have ever worked. That's not how independence has ever worked. Many groups have declared their independence without every acquiring it. The Confederacy falls under that category. The declared it, but never got it. Why on Earth you're trying to pretend that they're immune from the reality that all those other groups exist in is beyond me.

You don't understand do you?
Here
If you were once a part of a country and you paid taxes... and now you choose to split. You own all of the land in your territory. The southern territory was all the states that succeeded and everything in it but the humans*. The states made a decision.

*Minus blacks cuz they were property back then.
 
Last edited:
You don't understand do you?
Here
If you were once a part of a country and you paid taxes... and now you choose to split. You own all of the land in your territory. The southern territory was all the states that succeeded and everything in it but the humans*. The states made a decision.

*Minus blacks cuz they were property back then.

Very revealing how you differentiate African Americans from humans.
 
Cuba and the US were separate countries when they entered the contract. The US and the CSA were the same country. That is a very very false analogy.

So again, when did the US give up property rights? Never.


Here, maybe we need to bring this back to basics.
Secession | Define Secession at Dictionary.comse·ces·sion
noun 1.an act or instance of seceding.

2.(often initial capital letter
thinsp.png
) U.S. History. the withdrawal from the Union of 11 Southern states in the period 1860–61, which brought on the Civil War.



Also, treaties are only as good as both parties agreeing. The Constitution is a legally binding treaty, the north failed to uphold their end, the south finally had enough. Both sides handled things incorrectly but the north essentially committed trespass.
 
You don't understand do you?
Here

If you were once a part of a country and you paid taxes... and now you choose to split. You own all of the land in your territory. The southern territory was all the states that succeeded and everything in it but the humans*. The states made a decision.

*Minus blacks cuz they were property back then.
You don't understand do you? First, the states had no independent legal right to any of that property. They were never not a part of the union. Second, Fort Sumter was federal property - it was paid for with Northern taxes as well and the North didn't relinquish any rights.

Essentially, the Confederates said "this is mine" with no legal documents to support it and then shot people when they didn't obey their paperless demands and you think that signifies property rights. It doesn't.
 
Here, maybe we need to bring this back to basics.
Secession | Define Secession at Dictionary.comse·ces·sion
noun 1.an act or instance of seceding.

2.(often initial capital letter
thinsp.png
) U.S. History. the withdrawal from the Union of 11 Southern states in the period 1860–61, which brought on the Civil War.

Also, treaties are only as good as both parties agreeing. The Constitution is a legally binding treaty, the north failed to uphold their end, the south finally had enough. Both sides handled things incorrectly but the north essentially committed trespass.
The North didn't break the Constitution. The South was upset and they broke it by shooting people and forming a confederation.

Also, I don't know what that definition is supposed to do. You're right - that is secession. Good job?
 
You don't understand do you? First, the states had no independent legal right to any of that property. They were never not a part of the union. Second, Fort Sumter was federal property - it was paid for with Northern taxes as well and the North didn't relinquish any rights.
First, wrong. Once SC seceeded their borders and all lands within were no longer federal property. That's why I gave you the definition of secession. Once the south seceeded those territories were not federal property any longer, because they were not within federal lands. Second, wrong The federal no longer had rights within the southern borders, that's why it was called secession.
Essentially, the Confederates said "this is mine" with no legal documents to support it and then shot people when they didn't obey their paperless demands and you think that signifies property rights. It doesn't.
Those documents existed, they were called the articles of secession.
 
So did someone else pay for your house? Or did you pay for your house?

I paid for some of it. My wife also did (and of course, the bank). Because my wife also paid into it, if I seceded from the family she would have the right to get some compensation.
 
First, wrong. Once SC seceeded their borders and all lands within were no longer federal property. That's why I gave you the definition of secession. Once the south seceeded those territories were not federal property any longer, because they were not within federal lands. Second, wrong The federal no longer had rights within the southern borders, that's why it was called secession.
Like I said, saying you aren't part of the union doesn't make it so. Just like the US declaring its independence didn't make it independent, the CSA declaring independence doesn't make it independent. It was a part of the union until it won.

By your logic, any group in any country that says it has seceded has actually seceded. History disagrees with you vehemently.

Those documents existed, they were called the articles of secession.
Those were declarations that had no legal value. Saying you're independent doesn't make it so. It's pretty simple.
 
First, wrong. Once SC seceeded their borders and all lands within were no longer federal property. That's why I gave you the definition of secession. Once the south seceeded those territories were not federal property any longer, because they were not within federal lands. Second, wrong The federal no longer had rights within the southern borders, that's why it was called secession.

Maybe Ft. Sumter seceded from South Carolina. Have you considered that?

I'd say that Ft. Sumter was property of the US Government, at least before secession. When the Commander in Chief didn't give it up, couldn't you say the Fort effectively seceded from South Carolina?
 
The North didn't break the Constitution. The South was upset and they broke it by shooting people and forming a confederation.

Also, I don't know what that definition is supposed to do. You're right - that is secession. Good job?
Nope. The confederation was formed first, the north was asked to leave second, they refused third, and they were shot fourth. That usually happens when you trespass on other countries lands. Finally, the north did in fact violate the constitution, face it, your side was just as wrong as the south. The north had NO authority to lay taxes and tariffs on specifically the goods produced by the southern region, that is found right in article 8. The south had an implied right to secession because it was not prohibited by the constitution nor was the federal granted the power to enforce the union contract. You can keep trying to make this an attack on the soutern position, but the fact is the north is just as culpable.
 
Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks this, but this really just comes down to perception.

The South perceived themselves as independent, so according to them and those who see it their way - they were independent.

The North perceived the South as treasonous members of the Union, so according to them and those who see it their way - the CSA was not independent.

I could easily side with the South, but history tends to side with the North as no one ever becomes independent until they fight for it and win.
 
Maybe Ft. Sumter seceded from South Carolina. Have you considered that?

I'd say that Ft. Sumter was property of the US Government, at least before secession. When the Commander in Chief didn't give it up, couldn't you say the Fort effectively seceded from South Carolina?
Nope. It was surrounded by the southern territory.
 
I paid for some of it. My wife also did (and of course, the bank). Because my wife also paid into it, if I seceded from the family she would have the right to get some compensation.

That makes a lot of sense. Your right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom