• 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.
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).

But the flag is not? The flag is just as much a part of the propaganda, prescribed to get people on board and feeling national pride - something they can identify with. Either way, I have shown that the cause that southerners were fighting for was their rights, and specifically their right to hold slaves, have slaves returned to them, and the offense that they can not have slaves in new territories. I am sorry if that bursts your bubble and your view on what the south was fighting for, but it is in ink and there is not much you can do to change it.

Ergo, that flag is representation of the fight the secession and the ensuing war - which all occurred due to attempted abolishment of slavery. Without the abolishment of slavery and attempts to do so, there is no secession.
 
Last edited:
But the flag is not? The flag is just as much a part of the propaganda, prescribed to get people on board and feeling national pride - something they can identify with. Either way, I have shown that the cause that southerners were fighting for was their rights, and specifically their right to hold slaves, have slaves returned to them, and the offense that they can not have slaves in new territories. I am sorry if that bursts your bubble and your view on what the south was fighting for, but it is in ink and there is not much you can do to change it.

Of course it is.
I have laid it out pretty darn thick with the use of words like, iconography, that the new flags were part and parcel of the propaganda of the new state.
 
It was also flown by Confederate army units, during the Civil War.

Allow me to help you.

You don't get to omit the facts that you don't like, then claim to be better than everyone else.

I don't really understand how you think you are "helping" me... I laid out all the facts way back. You're just kind of half-catching up now.

Are you contending that Somalia copied the flag from Florida? You know that is crazy talk, right? Did you have any evidence supporting that outlandish proposition? Do you think these flags are copies of the blue bonnie too?

Flagbig.jpg
il.gif
africancanvasblkhiheela.jpg
the_more_you_know2.jpg
 
I don't really understand how you think you are "helping" me... I laid out all the facts way back. You're just kind of half-catching up now.

Are you contending that Somalia copied the flag from Florida? You know that is crazy talk, right? Did you have any evidence supporting that outlandish proposition? Do you think these flags are copies of the blue bonnie too?

View attachment 67118195
View attachment 67118196
View attachment 67118197
View attachment 67118194

Wrong colors. But, I'm sure you already figgered that out. Maybe you haven't...LOL!!!
 
Wrong colors. But, I'm sure you already figgered that out. Maybe you haven't...LOL!!!

Anyways... Are you really contending that Somalia copied the flag from Florida? Or what are we debating about here?
 
Naw man it's cool. It's not revisionist nonsense you just whine to much about nothing. It shouldn't be about the American flag ever, but if people want to take what it stood for and make it stand for something totally different that shows their independence then fine. I'm sure Buddhist would like to use the swastika again without being called a Nazi as well.
 
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?

Are you familiar with the Articles of Confederation?
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

What do you imagine they meant when they said, "Each state retains its sovereignty?"
 
Are you familiar with the Articles of Confederation?


What do you imagine they meant when they said, "Each state retains its sovereignty?"

I learned this kind of stuff in highschool. Makes you wonder what they are teaching people now adays.
 
Are you familiar with the Articles of Confederation?

What do you imagine they meant when they said, "Each state retains its sovereignty?"

Yeah, that's right. The articles of confederation pre-dated the constitution and had an extremely weak federal government, very strong state power. But, it failed. That's why they wrote the constitution- because they needed to vest much more power in the federal government and much less in the states.
 
I don't fly the confederate flag, but it is a symbol of rebellion. How is that different than OWS, the Don't Tread On Me flag, etc? I think most people's objections are the racial connotations, but that is more of a cultural thing. I've found that northerners consider it racist while southerners consider it to be more of a rebellion symbol against large central (northern) government. The American flag is a flag of rebellion and personal freedom as well.

I am a southerner and consider it a symbol of hate and racism. I do understand why others around here do not agree with me though:(
 
Yeah, that's right. The articles of confederation pre-dated the constitution and had an extremely weak federal government, very strong state power. But, it failed. That's why they wrote the constitution- because they needed to vest much more power in the federal government and much less in the states.

double_facepalm_by_redkintoba.jpg


1234567890
 
Yeah, that's right. The articles of confederation pre-dated the constitution and had an extremely weak federal government, very strong state power. But, it failed. That's why they wrote the constitution- because they needed to vest much more power in the federal government and much less in the states.

So what do you think they meant when they said that each state would retain its sovereignty. Does this not imply that each state was sovereign?
 
It was NEVER implied by me. You inferred it. Not my problem.

My entire point was that it's ironic for patriots to fly a non-patriotic flag. It wouldn't be ironic if they were actually traitors. They're not traitors and that's why I think flying the flag is so stupid.

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.
 
So what do you think they meant when they said that each state would retain its sovereignty. Does this not imply that each state was sovereign?

Yeah. They still are. That doesn't mean that succession is legal though. The constitution is like a contract. They have exercised their sovereign power to agreed to be bound by it. In the US anyways, it doesn't mean sovereign in the sense that the government of a state is not bound by the law. In fact that kind of unlimited sovereignty is what we fought the revolutionary war to get rid of. The states agreed to be bound by the constitution and the laws that flow from it. Their sovereignty doesn't change that.

I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't assume that whatever authority states had under the articles of confederation, they also have today. States had MUCH more power under the articles of confederation than they do under the constitution. For example, the federal government had no power to require taxes to be paid by anyone under the articles of confederation. It made a request to the states for funding, but the states were free to ignore it. One of the main reasons we created the constitution was because they did ignore it and the federal government could not collect any funds. Another major reason is because under the articles of confederation the states were engaging in protectionist trade policies against one another and so we wanted to empower the federal government to regulate commerce. Also, under the articles of confederation there were not federal courts and no real federal executive branch, and both those things were causing problems.

As to whether succession is legal or not, that's kind of like one of those "if a tree falls in the woods" questions. There can't ever be a real answer to that. Succession is the act of saying that the law of the country no longer applies to you. If you successfully get out, then your new laws would be what would govern and it is therefore legal. If you fail to get out, then the laws of the old country apply, and taking the stance that they don't apply to you certainly is illegal. Is it illegal in terms of the US's law to succede? Absolutely. The constitution imposes all kinds of obligations on states that they are not fulfilling if they succede.
 

Er, why'd you double facepalm me? Are you saying that you didn't know that about the articles of confederation? Why do you think we moved from them to the constitution? The founders were very explicit about it many times. Several of the federalist papers are dedicated exclusively to arguing for why we needed a stronger federal government.

Now, don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean they wanted a super strong federal government and super weak states. But they definitely wanted the federal government to be much stronger than it was under the articles of confederation. The country was more or less on track to dissolve back into separate countries because the federal government was too weak to hold it together and they implemented the constitution to prevent that.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. They still are.

I'm assuming that you are agreeing that prior to creating their compact the states were sovereign nation-states.

That doesn't mean that succession is legal though.

Why would secession be illegal? Can you show me where in the constitution secession is prohibited?

I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't assume that whatever authority states had under the articles of confederation, they also have today. States had MUCH more power under the articles of confederation than they do under the constitution.

Why would the states have less sovereignty now than when they decided to create their federation?
 
I'm assuming that you are agreeing that prior to creating their compact the states were sovereign nation-states.

Well, actually no. The articles of confederation were ratified 2 years before we really had won independence from England. So really before that they were colonies. But, if we went back and time and they didn't sign the articles of confederation or the constitution they probably would have turned into sovereign nation states.

Why would secession be illegal? Can you show me where in the constitution secession is prohibited?

Well what succession is is a declaration that you are rejecting the whole constitution. You are saying you will no longer follow anything it says in there. So really, every line of the constitution prohibits succession. For example, the constitution says that the states must appoint representatives and senators. They're breaking that by succeding. It says that the states can't deny anyone due process under the constitution, but if they're no longer recognizing the constitution, then they aren't doing that. Etc. There is nothing more illegal than rejecting the law entirely.

Why would the states have less sovereignty now than when they decided to create their federation?

They have agreed to be bound by the constitution, so they waived their power to do things the constitution prohibits.
 
Er, why'd you double facepalm me? Are you saying that you didn't know that about the articles of confederation? Why do you think we moved from them to the constitution? The founders were very explicit about it many times. Several of the federalist papers are dedicated exclusively to arguing for why we needed a stronger federal government.

Now, don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean they wanted a super strong federal government and super weak states. But they definitely wanted the federal government to be much stronger than it was under the articles of confederation. The country was more or less on track to dissolve back into separate countries because the federal government was too weak to hold it together and they implemented the constitution to prevent that.

Now this makes sense. What you said before sounded like you were saying that they made the Constitution to where the federal government would have more power than the States.
 
I'm assuming that you are agreeing that prior to creating their compact the states were sovereign nation-states.

Well, actually no. The articles of confederation were ratified 2 years before we really had won independence from England. So really before that they were colonies. But, if we went back and time and they didn't sign the articles of confederation or the constitution they probably would have turned into sovereign nation states.

So you contend that the states that formed our current union were never sovereign states? But what do you make of this clause in the articles of confederation?

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

They clearly were under the impression that they were sovereign states, no?

Well what succession is is a declaration that you are rejecting the whole constitution. You are saying you will no longer follow anything it says in there. So really, every line of the constitution prohibits succession. For example, the constitution says that the states must appoint representatives and senators. They're breaking that by succeding. It says that the states can't deny anyone due process under the constitution, but if they're no longer recognizing the constitution, then they aren't doing that. Etc. There is nothing more illegal than rejecting the law entirely.

The constitution lays out the rules for the federation and the rules for the member states. I see no prohibition on any of the member states from leaving the union, in which case, none of the lines in the constituion would apply to them, since they would not be members. The constitution only applies to those who belong to the union.


They have agreed to be bound by the constitution, so they waived their power to do things the constitution prohibits.

A treaty with no language specifically describing its termination is assumed to be "at will". This means that the members of the treaty may leave whenever they wish.
 
Several of the federalist papers are dedicated exclusively to arguing for why we needed a stronger federal government.

Really? Several of them argued for a stronger federal government? What percentage of them were dedicated to arguing for a stronger federal government?
 
Well, the "actual", literal, meaning of the flag is that it represents the confederacy during the civil war. That's the meaning they are objecting to. They aren't interpreting it, they're just sticking with the literal meaning. You are arguing that they should accept one particular alternative interpretation about federalism that you support and that they should assume that is what it means.
You are speaking as if there is an alternative. Fact is the flag represents people who believe in states rights, that's a major reason the war was fought and that's the reason we fly Dixie and not the confederate states flag, we are still in the state's rights war. The fact that people are mis-educated(and I was one for a while) with the oversimplified public school version of the war means nothing to me. If I misinterpret something ignorance of fact is no excuse. I give no pass on outside proclamations of southerner's intent.

Turn it around for a minute and maybe you'll see it in a different light. Say that you saw somebody walking around carrying a Nazi flag. You object to it and he tells you that you are misinterpreting it. He tells you that killing Jews was only part of the motive behind the Nazi's launching WWII. Mostly they were motivated by a desire to rid Europe of communists- a motive he supports- so he is carrying it around to symbolize his support for free market capitalism, not to show his support of the genocide of Jewish people. Do you think that would make it acceptable?
First off, anyone who sports the backwards Swastika is free to do so here, but if they do it while saying they support capitalism they are stupid, considering the bundesrepublic was a socialist state at the time that flag was flown. Next, slavery was not analagous to murder, considering that murder was always a heinous act, slavery was not considered so at the time. Again though, the biggest issues were economics and state's rights during the civil war, slavery was an issue that comprised both but was not the chief cause of the war, it was the last issue in a line of percieved abuses.
Now, like I said before, I really do believe that most southerners that fly the confederate flag honestly do mean to communicate a message other than support for slavery. I actually think it is mostly just flat out "southern pride", not the angle about federalism or slavery. But it isn't entirely different than the Nazi example either.
That is quite inaccurate, considering the German people themselves disavowed the Nazi party and all things related after the war ended.
The symbol literally is the symbol of a regime that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans primarily in order to continue a 200 year long holocaust of systematically enslaving, beating, killing, raping and breaking up families because of the color of their skin. Did the confederacy also have some less objectionable, or maybe even laudable, goals? Sure they did. But that absolutely, emphatically, does not excuse what they did. People are well within their rights to be offended by a show of support for such a thing even if that isn't what the person doing it intended to communicate.
So you are really going to compare and contrast two unrelated evils? Seriously, slavery was wrong, but the north was not innocent in any part of the civil war, they levied crippling economic abuses upon the southern states for decades before the issue of slavery was considered. Then when Lincoln needed a selling point for the war he got in line with the abolitionist movement, not before. All in all whether you care to understand that the thinking was different back then it is slightly dishonest to compare slavery with the wholesale genocide of an innocent people.
 
So you contend that the states that formed our current union were never sovereign states? But what do you make of this clause in the articles of confederation?

They clearly were under the impression that they were sovereign states, no?

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.

The constitution lays out the rules for the federation and the rules for the member states. I see no prohibition on any of the member states from leaving the union, in which case, none of the lines in the constituion would apply to them, since they would not be members. The constitution only applies to those who belong to the union.

That's what ratification is- an agreement to be bound by the terms of the contract.

But, if you want something more specific I guess it would be the references to the crime of rebellion and the consequences that flow from it. That's what succession is- rebellion. The original constitution allowed the president to suspend habeas corpus to fight a rebellion. The post civil war 14th amendment adds that voting rights can be taken away "for participation in rebellion or other crime", that you cannot be elected to Congress if you have participated in a rebellion, and that any debts accumulated by rebelling states would be "illegal and void".

You don't need that though. Really I think you're kind of getting wrapped around what is really just a semantic question. Rejecting an entire system of law certainly goes against that system of law. But by rejecting it, you're saying it no longer applies to you, so that doesn't really matter. The US's revolution was certainly illegal under British law, but British law no longer governed the US, and it was legal under the new US law. It would work the same way with any successful rebellion.

A treaty with no language specifically describing its termination is assumed to be "at will". This means that the members of the treaty may leave whenever they wish.

That's an interesting angle, but unfortunately, it isn't true. Under international law if there is no withdrawal condition in a treaty, what the courts do is try to assess the intent of the parties when they signed it. The intent of the constitution is clearly for it to be binding on the parties. It provides rights that individuals can assert against the state that they live in. It requires states to do things they don't want to do all the time. If it were merely enforceable so long as the states wanted it to be, it wouldn't serve those purposes.
 
Well what succession is is a declaration that you are rejecting the whole constitution. You are saying you will no longer follow anything it says in there. So really, every line of the constitution prohibits succession. For example, the constitution says that the states must appoint representatives and senators. They're breaking that by succeding. It says that the states can't deny anyone due process under the constitution, but if they're no longer recognizing the constitution, then they aren't doing that. Etc. There is nothing more illegal than rejecting the law entirely.

I have to disagree with this. When the original states agreed to the Constitution there were parts of the Constitution that did not apply to them. It wasn't until after the Civil War that pretty much the whole Bill of Rights started being applied to the States. The only ones that did was the 9th and 10th amendments. The rest of the BoR was directed at the federal government. The 9th and 10th was designed to make it to where the States could decide on everything else. The rest of the Constitution was directed at forming the Federal Government and what the Federal government was allowed to do.

As another tactic to show you why what you have said is inaccurate I'm going to use a couple of analogies.

1: When you agree to work for an employer, lets use Wal-Mart for this, you agree to be bound by thier rules. Would you argue that you could not quit from Wal-Mart if you thought that thier rules became "unjust"? Probably not. Ultimately the Constitution is nothing more than a Contract. And any contract can be legally broken by either party if they have reason to believe that the opposite side is not holding up thier side of the contract.

2: The US is a part of the UN. The US has agreed to be bound by the decisions of the UN. Would you argue that we must stay a part of the UN if they decide to do something that is extremely detrimental to the US? (yes I know that such a thing would be extremely hard for the UN to do...just assume for the sake of arguement that they do end up doing such a thing)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom