• 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.
Centinel said:
Really? Several of them argued for a stronger federal government? What percentage of them were dedicated to arguing for a stronger federal government?
Click to expand...

All of them as far as I know. Some of them wanted stronger or less strong federal government relative to one another, but they all agreed it needed to be stronger than the federal government under the articles of confederation. That's who the founders are- the guys that were picked by the congress of the articles of the confederation to sit on a committee dedicated to figuring out what could be done to strengthen the federal government before it collapsed. They broke away from the old congress and decided to start from scratch, but that was their primary goal- to fix the problems with the federal government of the articles being too weak. Nobody would have argued that it wasn't too weak. It was bankrupt and completely ineffective at any of the goals it set out to achieve.
 
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whatever man. Are you denying that, at the very least, one of the motives behind the war was the continuation of slavery? Surely you would agree that glorifying that is no good, right?

LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh god... This line of bs again... Go read a history book.

LaMidRighter said:
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.

That is quite inaccurate, considering the German people themselves disavowed the Nazi party and all things related after the war ended. 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.
Click to expand...

None of that has anything to do with anything. The confederacy killed hundreds of thousands of people and at least one of their goals- most people say their primary if not only goal- was the continuation of one of the most brutal crimes against humanity ever committed. That isn't something you should be glorifying or making excuses for.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

The constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce amongst the states, the power to tax the people of the states, the power to punish people for crimes, to stop rebellions, etc. Those are all powers the federal government has over the states. The states agreed to be subject to those powers by ratifying the constitution.

It is true that the bill of rights did not apply to the states until after the civil war. The 14th amendment established that they applied to the states. But, the 14th amendment was ratified in accordance with the rules of the constitution, so they committed themselves to that as well.

Also, consider this passage in the constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
Whatever man. Are you denying that, at the very least, one of the motives behind the war was the continuation of slavery? Surely you would agree that glorifying that is no good, right?
Click to expand...
So you aren't going to address the counterpoint?



Oh god... This line of bs again... Go read a history book.
Click to expand...
You lose on this point. Nazi Party — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts Hint: There is a reason they called it the National Socialist German Worker's party. Again, if someone wants to fly that flag they do so for their stated reason, and it almost 100% comes down to hatred of non-white minorities then so be it. It is their right in this country.


None of that has anything to do with anything. The confederacy killed hundreds of thousands of people and at least one of their goals- most people say their primary if not only goal- was the continuation of one of the most brutal crimes against humanity ever committed. That isn't something you should be glorifying or making excuses for.
Click to expand...
It addresses exactly your point about motives and the cultural acceptance of historical symbolism.
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
So you aren't going to address the counterpoint?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if the confederacy had only the goal of continuing slavery or they had the goal of continuing slavery along with a bunch of other goals. The whole enterprise was poisoned irreparably by it's support of slavery. Supporting the confederacy means supporting slavery regardless of whether it also means supporting state's rights or whatever.

If you want to show your support for state's rights, find a way to do it that doesn't also involve showing support for slavery.

LaMidRighter said:
You lose on this point. Nazi Party — History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts Hint: There is a reason they called it the National Socialist German Worker's party. Again, if someone wants to fly that flag they do so for their stated reason, and it almost 100% comes down to hatred of non-white minorities then so be it. It is their right in this country.
Click to expand...

Dude, I'm just not willing to have the idiotic "were the Nazi's left wing" conversation again on this board... It's too far beyond stupid.

But, yeah, like I said before, we shouldn't ban flying the confederate flag or something. But that doesn't make somebody flying it less of a jackass for doing it.
 
Hide yo signs, hide yo memes, hide yo lulz,hide yo southern pride cause you be offending e'erbody up in hur!
 
theplaydrive said:
There are several threads on the Confederate flag that dance around this question.

Many people, usually, if not always, conservatives, argue in favor of the Confederate flag and the desire to fly it or place it within the public domain. Oftentimes, they refer to it as if it is merely an innocent symbol of United States history, a symbol of state's rights, a symbol of fighting against far reaching federal government and sometimes even a symbol of patriotism.

However, these arguments, to me, seem like revisionist nonsense. The Confederate flag represents treason. It was the flag of people whose actions were not based in love of their country, but in a decision to give up on their country and abandon it in order to form a new one. It was a flag flown by those who decided that they no longer wished to be a part of the United States and that they no longer wished to solve their problems while remaining Americans.

Consequently, it seems obvious to me that the Confederate flag is not one that would be flown proudly by Americans, but one that would be flown proudly by those who no longer wish to be Americans. For this reason, it seems ridiculous to allow such a flag to be present on anything belonging to or issued by the state as it represents those who want to disassociate themselves from the state. It also seems ridiculous for anyone who considers themselves a patriot to fly the flag of people who abandoned their patriotism. Am I right about all of this? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Ultimately, symbols are subjective. It means whatever the person flying it says it means.

Personally? I find it a weird thing to be proud of. But then again I'm a progressive, and a Northern girl.
 
teamosil said:
It doesn't matter if the confederacy had only the goal of continuing slavery or they had the goal of continuing slavery along with a bunch of other goals. The whole enterprise was poisoned irreparably by it's support of slavery. Supporting the confederacy means supporting slavery regardless of whether it also means supporting state's rights or whatever.
Click to expand...
And how exactly do you qualify this position? Especially how do you qualify this in light of the fact that the north's position wasn't even to end slavery until support for the war was needed?

If you want to show your support for state's rights, find a way to do it that doesn't also involve showing support for slavery.
Click to expand...
That is a mischaracterization, everyone in this thread has declared that it was a different mindset and even then slavery was a sub-issue to state's rights and economics. Not a single person in this thread has "supported slavery".


Dude, I'm just not willing to have the idiotic "were the Nazi's left wing" conversation again on this board... It's too far beyond stupid.

But, yeah, like I said before, we shouldn't ban flying the confederate flag or something. But that doesn't make somebody flying it less of a jackass for doing it.
Click to expand...
You brought up the nazis, then you made a statement about the flag being used by a capitalist. Not my fault your analogy had a fatal flaw.
 
It has the same symbolic value as the Nazi Germany flag.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If they win, they have all the right in the world.
And that's how stuff really works.

.
Click to expand...

NO. that simply means you won. It has nothing to do with the right to do what you did. I can sneak up behind you and knock you out with a ball bat to the back of the head. I win as you lie there in a pool of blood. I had no RIGHT to do that. I simply did it, won and then got away with it.

For the life of me I will never understand the rightist libertarian fascination with the confederacy and the need to justify so much about it.
 
Last edited:
from Goshin on the confederate flag

That's a very different thing, see. I disagree with a lot of things... doesn't always mean I want them outlawed.
Click to expand...

I agree. It makes it much easier to identify the enemy when they have already identified themselves.
 
apdst said:
No, they were fighting for their property rights. Looking at it in the from the wrong perspective makes your opinion wrong.
Click to expand...

yeah - the 'right' to own other human beings as property. Since people are mostly water, how long until slavery apologists like you try to pass off the whole thing as a fight over water rights? Would that make it absurd enough for you?
 
LaMidRighter said:
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...

Actually that is not true. There was plenty of information available which condemned slavery and made a detailed case against it. Religious preachers railed against it, abolitionists circulated pamphlets against it and spoke out in rallies against it. People in the South worked on the underground railroad system to help escaped slaves. There are countless examples of efforts to show that slavery was wrong. If someone opted that slavery was right, it was a decision they made against other information that was available at the time.

One cannot hold another human being in a condition of slavery, denying them their basic humanity and treating them as an animal without some level of ill intent. This romanticized BS idea of 'we so does loves our darkies" is simply nonsense.
 
teamosil said:
The constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce amongst the states, the power to tax the people of the states, the power to punish people for crimes, to stop rebellions, etc. Those are all powers the federal government has over the states. The states agreed to be subject to those powers by ratifying the constitution.
Click to expand...

Very true. However seceeding was not really a rebellion. It was a withdrawal. Much like what would happen if we withdrew from the UN. Would you consider withdrawing from the UN a rebellion?

A rebellion is something happens when you attempt to take over an existing government. The southern states was not attempting to do this. They were perfectly willing to let the rest of the Union be as it was.

teamosil said:
It is true that the bill of rights did not apply to the states until after the civil war. The 14th amendment established that they applied to the states. But, the 14th amendment was ratified in accordance with the rules of the constitution, so they committed themselves to that as well.
Click to expand...

However, the South was not a part of those preceedings. Remember, the South seceeded from the Union. As such those states that were still a part of that Union did not include the southern states in the Constitutions representitive status. Indeed, the southern states had to reapply for admission into the Union before they were again allowed a say in Congress/Senate and to be considered a part of the United States. Knowing that they had to reapply shows that the US at the time did consider the south to not officially belong in the Union. Instead they were considered territories. To apply a present day comparrison think of the Virgin Islands. Only difference being that with the Southern states we had to conquer them. We bought the Virgin Islands.

Of course, once the southern states reapplied for admission into the US they then accepted all the amendments, including the 14th.

teamosil said:
Also, consider this passage in the constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Which would apply if the Southern states had violated any of the laws set down by the US Constitution or any other law of the time. However AFAIK there was nothing in the Constitution which prohibited secession (there still isn't) and there was no law outside of the Constitution which also prohibited secession.
 
haymarket said:
yeah - the 'right' to own other human beings as property. Since people are mostly water, how long until slavery apologists like you try to pass off the whole thing as a fight over water rights? Would that make it absurd enough for you?
Click to expand...

Umm.... really dude..? REALLY?

Gotta be the most ignorant thing Ive read in a while....

And we are all now less intelligent for having read it.
 
apdst said:
To educate people like yourself. If you have a problem with it, you're more than welcome to put me on ignore.
Click to expand...

Which seems to be your strategy. Take positions that are over the top and cannot be supported with verifiable facts and data. Take positions that are so far outside the mainstream that they border on willful fantasy fueled and motivated by extremism. Then dig in your heels and argue with people who take you to task and show you that there is no basis in fact for your extremist beliefs. Then crow how smart you are and how you "won the debate" when you actually got your butt kicked on it. Then when people keep telling you that you do not have a leg to stand on, you tell them to put you on IGNORE.

That achieves your goal as you will then be able to spread your extremist nonsense without fear of being challenged by them.

If you truly want to 'educate people' as you claim here, begin with actual verifiable information that speaks to the real historical record. Using extreme racist right wing sources written by murderers in prison and published on white supremacy websites and which can be verified no other places, is not educating anyone on the issues being discussed. Your usage of them however does indeed educate others here to your motivations, your extremist beliefs and your slipshod methods.
 
Caine said:
Umm.... really dude..? REALLY?

Gotta be the most ignorant thing Ive read in a while....

And we are all now less intelligent for having read it.
Click to expand...

You really don't get it do you? Reducing a discussion of slavery to the sanitized euphemism of PROPERTY RIGHTS is committing intellectual fraud and is inherently dishonest. People are human beings and not objects to be owned as property. My mentioning of reducing this to a discussion of WATER RIGHTS is a further sanitized euphemism to show how absurd the whole thing is. It is SUPPOSE TO SHOW THE IGNORANCE of the entire idea of refusing to discuss slavery as something than the most despicable treatment of our fellow human beings.

Got that?
 
Thrilla said:
who is "the enemy" ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
This romanticized BS idea of 'we so does loves our darkies" is simply nonsense.
Click to expand...

You are right....

Abraham Lincoln said:
"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."
Click to expand...

Ulysses Grant said:
If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side.
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
NO. that simply means you won. It has nothing to do with the right to do what you did. I can sneak up behind you and knock you out with a ball bat to the back of the head. I win as you lie there in a pool of blood. I had no RIGHT to do that. I simply did it, won and then got away with it.

For the life of me I will never understand the rightist libertarian fascination with the confederacy and the need to justify so much about it.
Click to expand...

speaking for myself, I am interested in the confederacy.

now, i'm quite sure in the minds of simpletons that says that i'm a slavery apologist or a racist, or what have you... but that a problem in their brains , not mine.
my opinions are not swayed my the yammerings of simpletons.

I 100% oppose slavery and racism... but it does interest me that this country had, and still has, a ton of people who prefer tyranny over freedom.
was the south wrong to adhere to the institution of slavery?.. absolutely... you can't preach freedom and liberty when you enslave people.
was it wrong to secede?...I do not believe it was...I don't find it evil or bad to do so.... and I would be supportive of secession if it were to happen today, as i'm not a fan of tyranny.
was the north wrong for initiating a war to keep the south in the union?.. I think so.... you can't preach freedom , liberty , and self determination when you enslave people.
both the north and south had their own brands of slavery that they adhered to.. .southern slavery is dead, the kind that the north adhered to is alive and well.. and perpetual.

I'm neither happy nor sad that the South lost and the union was kept, really... but I to tend to believe that it's right and proper for group of people to choose their own sovereign and have the ability and right to change if the need/want arises.
 
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...

Who is defending its use?

Because YOU view something a certain way, we all must?

I guess this is the creation of the narcissistic society we live in.

Everything must revolve around the opinions of the narcissistic individual.
 
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...

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.
 
haymarket said:
You really don't get it do you? Reducing a discussion of slavery to the sanitized euphemism of PROPERTY RIGHTS is committing intellectual fraud and is inherently dishonest.
Click to expand...
Trying to view the decision making process of people in 1860 with the current sociological views of 2011 is committing intellectual fraud and dishonesty, sir.

People are human beings and not objects to be owned as property.
Click to expand...
And that is the common belief today, the same cannot be said of 1860, which is when the events surrounding this debate took place.

My mentioning of reducing this to a discussion of WATER RIGHTS is a further sanitized euphemism to show how absurd the whole thing is. It is SUPPOSE TO SHOW THE IGNORANCE of the entire idea of refusing to discuss slavery as something than the most despicable treatment of our fellow human beings.
Click to expand...
Oh it definitely showed ignorance all right. Just not the type you were aiming for.

Got that?
Click to expand...
Yep, 100%. Your attempt to show some type of ignorance backfired, and you can't debate a historical concept without using modern concepts of social equality not believed in the time period you are attempting to debate.
 
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...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom