• 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.
No argument as usual?
I and others have addressed your point tenfold in this thread. If you want the response, look for it. Hint: The Confederate Flag and the American Flag are not the same flag. Your post is, quite honestly, ridiculous as it shows that the points being discussed in this thread are flying high over your head.
 
Last edited:
I and others have addressed your point tenfold in this thread. If you want the response, look for it. Hint: The Confederate Flag and the American Flag are not the same flag. Your post is, quite honestly, ridiculous as it shows that the points being discussed in this thread are flying high over your head.

I find it hard to believe that anybody with a average IQ would not understand that the issue is not about if the flags are identical but that the flags, on some levels, represent the same things at certain points in their existence.

WHOOOSH!! Seriously... un****ingbelievable! :roll:
 
Well now you've brought up something that we can actually debate. There are similarities and differences between the formation of America and the formation of the Confederacy. But I believe that the motives for forming the Confederacy were far, far more sinister. That is a major reason why I have taken the stance that I have.

Finally someone with some common sense! There are similarities and differences between the formation of America and the formation of the Confederacy. I agree.

The motives for forming the Confederacy were far, far more sinister. I agree.

That being said, your second paragraph is a strawman. Slavery hardly entered the picture of why the Colonies wanted to secede from Britain.

I have repeeatedly stated that it is not about why the people under the flag wanted to divert from "mother country " but what the people under the flag did in society and that is what ultimately the flag represents. It isn't that hard of a point to grasp, not directed at you but the others that can't seem to see past their own nose. Both had slavery. Both were racist. Both, to a degree, were treasonous for wanting to fight and separate. It isn't even a big point and I find it ridiculous that some can't just see that for what it is...

It's awfully hard to argue that it's not treason.

What is not treason? The CF? I agree. It does represent treason on some levels, moreso than the American Flag even. I think that it is also reasonable to argue that today people are not flying the flag because they want to commit treason but because they find the flag to be a cultural identity symbol. Many fly it because they are racist scumbags... but not all.

This goes back to my original point. A symbol represents different things to different people.
 
I'll be glad to when the trollish comments stop.

Show some basic understanding of how precedent is used in the court when making decisions then. I know you want to fall back on it by pretending it has more power than it actually has but by doing so it makes you look stupid. I'm guessing you have done this bit of nonsense before and got away with it because people aren't aware of the truth, but if you continue on here I will embarrass you.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing you have done this bit of nonsense before and got away with it because people aren't aware of the truth, but if you continue on here I will embarrass you.

Oh goodie! A first to look forward to here at Debate Politics! ;)
 
I find it hard to believe that anybody with a average IQ would not understand that the issue is not about if the flags are identical but that the flags, on some levels, represent the same things at certain points in their existence.
And the point still went over your head. You should be super embarrassed right now. Like I said, several people have made the same point and it's already been handled and dealt with several times by several posters. Look for the answers to your nonsense with the search function. Hint 2: This thread is about the Confederate Flag as it pertains to the current United States.
 
Last edited:
Finally someone with some common sense! There are similarities and differences between the formation of America and the formation of the Confederacy. I agree.

The motives for forming the Confederacy were far, far more sinister. I agree.

Yeah.

I have repeeatedly stated that it is not about why the people under the flag wanted to divert from "mother country " but what the people under the flag did in society and that is what ultimately the flag represents. It isn't that hard of a point to grasp, not directed at you but the others that can't seem to see past their own nose. Both had slavery. Both were racist. Both, to a degree, were treasonous for wanting to fight and separate. It isn't even a big point and I find it ridiculous that some can't just see that for what it is...

Yes and no. Yes, America was founded as a nation run by white male property owners (and we broke away from one who did the same). But that wasn't the reason that America was founded. The Confederacy was formed with the primary objective of continuing a slavery-based economy.

What is not treason? The CF? I agree. It does represent treason on some levels, moreso than the American Flag even. I think that it is also reasonable to argue that today people are not flying the flag because they want to commit treason but because they find the flag to be a cultural identity symbol. Many fly it because they are racist scumbags... but not all.

Which is why I agreed with an earlier post that the South needs a new flag to stand for not pride and not prejudice. Honestly, if it weren't for the damn prejudice, the South can be a pretty cool place. (Well not in the summer time. ;))

This goes back to my original point. A symbol represents different things to different people.

What gets me about people who fly the Confederate flag is not so much that they may be supporting racism, or maybe even slavery or treason. What gets me is that by flying that flag, they're making light of all of that. They're making light of all the brave men who shed blood to keep this nation whole. They're making light of the fact that eleven states betrayed their loyalty to the United States of America. And they're making light that that flag stood for an all-out defense of an oppressive, racist institution. THAT is why I hate the Confederate flag.

Show some basic understanding of how precedent is used in the court when making decisions then. I know you want to fall back on it by pretending it has more power than it actually has but by doing so it makes you look stupid. I'm guessing you have done this bit of nonsense before and got away with it because people aren't aware of the truth, but if you continue on here I will embarrass you.

Usually when people make that kind of threat, it backfires on them. Just saying. ;)
 
What gets me is that by flying that flag, they're making light of all of that. They're making light of all the brave men who shed blood to keep this nation whole.
What about those who shed their blood to stay free of political oppression from the more populous north? Many writings made at the time made it clear that the southern states knew they were a "permanent minority" in the legislature.
They're making light of the fact that eleven states betrayed their loyalty to the United States of America.
Sorry, but we had yet to go through the "Nationalism" movement, thus this Loyalty to the United States of America argument is moot. Back in these days it was about STATES that were United... not THE United States. Historical Perspective please....
And they're making light that that flag stood for an all-out defense of an oppressive, racist institution. THAT is why I hate the Confederate flag.
You can keep jumping up and down screaming racist institution.... but the institution of slavery wasn't about RACISM... it was about PROFIT. The northern folks were just as racist as the southerners..... (still are), there was just a loud movement based around the MORAL argument of owning another person.
 
While we are on opposite sides of this issue, I do think you have a valid point that racism was on both sides. While some abolitionists did indeed preach universal brotherhood, there was obvious racism all over the nation.

Having said that, I do think that most sane people would agree that there is a difference between racism and the complete enslavement of a race of people.
 
While we are on opposite sides of this issue, I do think you have a valid point that racism was on both sides. While some abolitionists did indeed preach universal brotherhood, there was obvious racism all over the nation.

Having said that, I do think that most sane people would agree that there is a difference between racism and the complete enslavement of a race of people.

Slaves were property because they were profitable.... not because they were black.

North Carolina: 14,000 slave owners..... 10,000 free black men.....


How could such a (EVIL RACIST RACIST RACIST) place allow free black men in nearly the same numbers as slave owners?
 
Slaves were property because they were profitable.... not because they were black.
Not so much. People had slaves because they were profitable. Those who were chosen to be slaves were overwhelmingly chosen because they were black. Because black people were seen as inferior to all other races, they were deemed the most suitable of all "races" for slavery which is why the majority of slaves in the United States were black.
 
Slaves were property because they were profitable.... not because they were black.

North Carolina: 14,000 slave owners..... 10,000 free black men....

evidence please. and how many slaves were in NC at the time?

and are you ACTUALLY suggesting that African-slavery was not a racist institution????
 
Not so much. People had slaves because they were profitable. Those who were chosen to be slaves were overwhelmingly chosen because they were black. Because black people were seen as inferior to all other races, they were deemed the most suitable of all "races" for slavery which is why the majority of slaves in the United States were black.

Actually, Caine's got a point, but he didn't really make it.

Racism was an artificial construct that was put on after the fact. The absolute worst thing that could have happened to Southern elites would be if poor whites ever realized they had more in common with slaves than with the planters. So they started spreading the idea that blacks were racially inferior.

Originally in Europe, slaves came from Eastern Europe. Thus the similarity between the word "slave" and the word "slav." When Turks took control of the Bosphorus straits, it cut off the Black Sea slave trade. So they turned to Africa.
 
Slaves were property because they were profitable.... not because they were black.

North Carolina: 14,000 slave owners..... 10,000 free black men.....


How could such a (EVIL RACIST RACIST RACIST) place allow free black men in nearly the same numbers as slave owners?

Where did this statistic come from?
 
Black slavery was not based on racism? Is that what they are teaching these days? To those making this claim have your read any period writings about how blacks were perceived? The whole justification for their enslavement was their "natural" inferiority. Blacks were not just considered to be less than whites, they were KNOWN to be so. Read even period scientific journals on the topic. Please do not be so naive as to buy slavery was an economic response, of course it was economical, room and board without wages is real cheap labor.
 
Actually, Caine's got a point, but he didn't really make it.

Racism was an artificial construct that was put on after the fact. The absolute worst thing that could have happened to Southern elites would be if poor whites ever realized they had more in common with slaves than with the planters. So they started spreading the idea that blacks were racially inferior.

Originally in Europe, slaves came from Eastern Europe. Thus the similarity between the word "slave" and the word "slav." When Turks took control of the Bosphorus straits, it cut off the Black Sea slave trade. So they turned to Africa.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that your argument is that slave owners didn't really think blacks were inferior, they just said that to prevent an uprising from poor whites. Do you have a source that substantiates this claim? Because I'm quite certain, given what I've read on the subject, that they really believed blacks were inferior and consequently, the race that belonged in slavery more than any others.
 
Not so much. People had slaves because they were profitable. Those who were chosen to be slaves were overwhelmingly chosen because they were black. Because black people were seen as inferior to all other races, they were deemed the most suitable of all "races" for slavery which is why the majority of slaves in the United States were black.

The fact that they were originally sold into slavery from conquering african tribes at the low price of Rum, making them a cheap investment had absolutely nothing to do with it......... *shrug*
 
Where did this statistic come from?

Population statistical data I researched.......
Problem is for the life of me I can't seem to dig it up again... I'll find it eventually... it was somewhere on wikipedia pulling from the consensus.
 
Caine - where are you getting those North Carolina figures from? Please provide a verifiable source as the numbers you gave are completely out of sync with everything I have ever seen from reputable sources. The only stuff which might agree with this is white supremacist sources of the type quoted by another poster on this site who uses that nonsense an no reputable site will accept it.

Wikipedia uses the figures that 1/3 of Southern families owned slaves. Your NC figures would be drastically low for that.
 
Last edited:
evidence please. and how many slaves were in NC at the time?

and are you ACTUALLY suggesting that African-slavery was not a racist institution????

It began as an economical institution......
They were acquired cheaply, sold by africans tribes who conquered one another for rum or other items that Europeans found common.

Do you honestly think that if a cheaper alternative was available they would still go for the african slaves because of evil evil racism?
 
Caine - where are you getting those North Carolina figures from? Please provide a verifiable source as the numbers you gave are completely out of sync with everything I have ever seen from reputable sources. The only stuff which might agree with this is white supremacist sources of the type quoted by another poster on this site who uses that nonsense an no reputable site will accept it.

Show your sources then.... Why am I the only one who has to?
 
Show your sources then.... Why am I the only one who has to?

Because you are the one who listed the numbers.

Here is info I printed several times in reply to apdst who claimed that only 1% owned slaves - a number closer to your number.


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.


Lets look at other sources that confirm this information.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_slaves

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

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

http://www.amazon.com/General-Lees-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276825358&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.
The Historic Census Browser from the University of Virginia also confirms the numbers from yahoo answers that you are so disparaging of

http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/
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.

All this indicates your NC numbers are really out of sync.
 
Last edited:
Crap my statistics were off!!!! Posting the site now...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom