• 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.
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.

And yet the document is called the "Constitution of the United States" and not the "Constitution of this Nation".
 
What would you say if a militia in Montana suddenly opened fire on a border crossing and declared themselves part of Canada?

Well, that is not really at all similar to what happened with secession and eventually the war. So mostly, I'd say you're making a completely invalid comparison.
 
Get the quote right.

Fine. It's "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." It just backs up my position more, that there were a "people of the United States," not the people of 13 seperate countries.
 
The Confederate states were in the Union before they established the Confederacy. They were states that established a confederation. That is the point.

They were in the union. Then they left the union. Then they formed their own federation.
 
Well, that is not really at all similar to what happened with secession and eventually the war. So mostly, I'd say you're making a completely invalid comparison.

What's not similar about it, outside of joining Canada? It's a group of people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in concert with one another.
 
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.
the secession was peaceful... and occurred 4 months prior to Fort Sumter.(except for the 4 border states who seceded as a result of the battle of fort sumte)

the south fired the first shots, that for certain... but as for initiating war, that's a matter of perspective.
the confederates held that the union maintaining Fort Sumter, on confederate soil, was an act of war which initiated hostilities.
the Union held that the initiation of war was the acts of violence against the Fort.
there's legitimacy on both sides there, to me.
 
You said:

You're wrong. They didn't.

Good job cherry picking. Now, why don't you include the rest of what I said after "The south seceeded peacefully." Context is everything.


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.

Why should they walk away? Fort Sumpter was obviously in South Carolina, a state that had seceeded from the Union. Before the secession that fort was considered it be in and a part of the state of South Carolina. It was for all intents and purposes South Carolina's fort.
 
Fine. It's "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union..." It just backs up my position more, that there were a "people of the United States," not the people of 13 seperate countries.

Yes, the people of the states formed the union. I don't argue with you about this.
 
It's not treasonous to refer to history.

If something as simple as (waving) the Confederate flag is treasonous, then everyone who's burned the actual flag is way deeper in ****.
 
I still think they're crazy. But I also think those of you screaming "treason!" are hacks.
I was going to respond point by point and then I saw this and realized your posts weren't worthy of it.

First, calling it "treason" is not a "leap". Many people during the Civil War considered it treason. Certain definitions of treason consider it treason. If you want to argue that it isn't treason, go ahead, but I'll defend my arguments as well. However, chalking a valid argument up to hackery is nonsensical.

Second, there is nothing wrong with treason in and of itself and the majority, if not all, of us have not made such an argument. Moreover, most arguments, particularly mine in the OP do not rest upon a value of judgment of treason, but upon a question of its existence. We all know how our country was founded, so please spare us lessons that we've already learned.
 
It's not treasonous to refer to history.

If something as simple as (waving) the Confederate flag is treasonous, then everyone who's burned the actual flag is way deeper in ****.
No one has argued that waving a Confederate flag is treasonous.
 
What would you say if a militia in Montana suddenly opened fire on a border crossing and declared themselves part of Canada?

If a militia in Montana suddenly opened fired on a border crossing and declared themselves a part of Canada then that would be an act of treason or at the very least convicted for breaking our laws. Reason being is that any militias that are in Montana does not speak for the Montana government or for the state as a whole. It is just a group. We are talking about States here. Not groups of people.

However individual citizens do have a right to renounce citizenship of the US. And most countries will allow individuals to apply for citizenship.
 
What's not similar about it, outside of joining Canada? It's a group of people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in concert with one another.

Well, the Confederacy didn't simply open fire for one. Sanity wasn't their strong suit, but they weren't quite that nuts.
 
Good job cherry picking. Now, why don't you include the rest of what I said after "The south seceeded peacefully." Context is everything.
And the context does nothing to make that statement correct.

Why should they walk away? Fort Sumpter was obviously in South Carolina, a state that had seceeded from the Union. Before the secession that fort was considered it be in and a part of the state of South Carolina. It was for all intents and purposes South Carolina's fort.
I haven't made a claim that they should have walked away. I pointed out the facts that both the Union and the Confederacy considered Fort Sumter their territory. Neither one was objectively correct. Who 'owned' it was a matter of perspective. They both thought they owned it. One of them chose to be violent. These are just simple facts. I have no arguments about "should" and whatnot.
 
Last edited:
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.

All wars often get thier name after the war has ended. Just because it is called a Civil War does not mean that is truely exactly what happened.

If it truely was a civil war then why is it you suppose that the states had to apply for admittance into the Union after the war? Does that not indicate that the southern states were considered to be no longer a part of the union? IE thier secession was basically accepted?
 
I was going to respond point by point and then I saw this and realized your posts weren't worthy of it.

First, calling it "treason" is not a "leap". Many people during the Civil War considered it treason. Certain definitions of treason consider it treason. If you want to argue that it isn't treason, go ahead, but I'll defend my arguments as well. However, chalking a valid argument up to hackery is nonsensical.

Second, there is nothing wrong with treason in and of itself and the majority, if not all, of us have not made such an argument. Moreover, most arguments, particularly mine in the OP do not rest upon a value of judgment of treason, but upon a question of its existence. We all know how our country was founded, so please spare us lessons that we've already learned.

Oh whoopie do. More non-sequitors. Shocking.

Your first post was very accusatory and negative. You clearly do think it's a bad thing in this case, or at least that no one who flies it can be a patriot.

This is essentially about whether the Confederate flag is offensive, and/or if people who fly it are traitors. You're dancing really hard around what your posts obviously implied. I'm saying it takes a lot of cojones and a certain amount of denial to even try to pull that argument off. Even if it's true, it's just about the most benign and State-sanctioned form of treason there is, and in addition to that you will find no single explanation for why people fly the Confederate flag. It means different things to different people, some of which are very patriotic in a bizarre, distinctly Southern sort of way.

From growing up in the North and having spent a fair enough amount of time in the South, the reality is that the Civil War never really ended - it just turned into a cold war. There is still a very distinct identity amongst a lot of Southerners. Something the more bland Northerners will never really get. Something I don't get, frankly. But I know better than to comment on things I don't understand... especially considering that some of my ancestors were quite literally Revolution traitors.

They see themselves as "the real Americans," not the traitors. Being an American is basically an idea - it's something you can take with you. They think they took it with them when they made the Confederacy. And if I turn to the right and **** my head about 45 degrees, I can sort of see where they're coming from.

It's such a subjective and ultimately meaningless thing that I don't see why it's such a big deal. They think they're "the real Americans." I think they're crazy. We have our opinions. But I'm very convinced both of us ultimately care about the country. Their idea of what it means to be an American is also very meta, and even though I don't think most of them know what that is, it's impressive none the less.
 
Last edited:
And the context does nothing to make that statement correct.

Agreed. Because the statement by itself is wrong. The rest of what was said shows why it is also correct. Context explains everything.

I haven't made a claim that they should have walked away. I pointed out the facts that both the Union and the Confederacy considered Fort Sumter their territory. Neither one was objectively correct. Who 'owned' it was a matter of perspective. They both thought they owned it. One of them chose to be violent. These are just simple facts. I have no arguments about "should" and whatnot.

True you did not make that claim. And what you say here is basically correct. What you have got to ask yourself is was the violence that was initiated by the Southern General valid? There are times when violence is necessary. For example...to protect ones property. In order to answer this you must ask yourself who's claim to the fort was more valid? The Union? Or the South? If you accept that the secession was legal then the fort obviously belonged to South Carolina. Which means that the fort belonged to them. If you do not accept the secession then the fort belongs to the Union.

Which again begs the question. If the South's seccession was not accepted then why did they have to apply for admittance into the Union after the war ended?
 
The people arguing the civil war was about states rights is just idiotic. The only right they cared about was keeping slaves. I'm sure if the north took away their right to inbreed they would be mad, but not enough to secede.
 
The people arguing the civil war was about states rights is just idiotic. The only right they cared about was keeping slaves. I'm sure if the north took away their right to inbreed they would be mad, but not enough to secede.

Learn history. Slavery may have been a major part of the civil war but it was not the ONLY reason.
 
Learn history. Slavery may have been a major part of the civil war but it was not the ONLY reason.

As with any war, there are multiple reasons...some more important than others...as powers try to justify their actions. Had the United States not outlawed slavery, we never would have had a Civil War. The South was united behind their prejudice. I say that because, in the scheme of things, only the wealthy (for the most part) owned slaves. And, of course, their sons probably didn't fight in the war. Some things never change.
 
All wars often get thier name after the war has ended. Just because it is called a Civil War does not mean that is truely exactly what happened.
It was referred to as the Civil War during the conflict by Lincoln and the Supreme Court. Two of the other most popular names were the War of Rebellion and War for Southern Independence. Neither assume the existence of southern independence, but only the fight for it.

If it truely was a civil war then why is it you suppose that the states had to apply for admittance into the Union after the war? Does that not indicate that the southern states were considered to be no longer a part of the union? IE thier secession was basically accepted?
Not really. I imagine that application was merely a confirmation of loyalty. Do you have a primary source which details the reasons for requiring them to apply?
 
Agreed. Because the statement by itself is wrong. The rest of what was said shows why it is also correct. Context explains everything.
I read it in context. It's still wrong. Within the context of your post, the statement is still wrong.

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.

There is nothing in this context that validates your first statement. In fact, you invalidate it in the second statement.

True you did not make that claim. And what you say here is basically correct. What you have got to ask yourself is was the violence that was initiated by the Southern General valid? There are times when violence is necessary. For example...to protect ones property. In order to answer this you must ask yourself who's claim to the fort was more valid? The Union? Or the South? If you accept that the secession was legal then the fort obviously belonged to South Carolina. Which means that the fort belonged to them. If you do not accept the secession then the fort belongs to the Union.
It doesn't matter to me whether it was valid. That's a subjective question. To the Confederacy, it was valid. To the North, it wasn't. That's solely a matter of perspective as I said. My point is only that the South was the first aggressor and it was not peaceful in its secession.

Which again begs the question. If the South's seccession was not accepted then why did they have to apply for admittance into the Union after the war ended?
See my other post.
 
despite the bickering , holier than thou attitudes, and differing perspectives... i'm really glad people are taking the time to consider our history.

as to how the issue pertains to me...
I'm a native Nevadan.. and that wouldn't be possible except for the civil war.
my state owes its very existence to the civil war.
we financed the northern war effort with 400 million bucks worth of silver( this wasn't voluntary)... and in return, we were fast-tracked into statehood ( so Lincoln could have another state support his reelection)... in fact, we held the record for the longest telegraph ever sent across the wires for quite some time.
we telegraphed our state constitution in to be granted statehood... because sending it by train would have meant it might not get there in time to get into the election.
we didn't fight for the union or against the confederacy...we fought indians and ourselves (volunteer union soldiers arrested and jailed confederate sympathizers).

in true Nevada fashion, we bought our way into the union utilizing politically corrupt practices....we became a nation vacation spot ( Las Vegas) through criminality and corruption as well...


sooooo, the next time you are in Las Vegas... give a lil thanks to the Confederate States of America .. and the teamsters union.
 
As with any war, there are multiple reasons...some more important than others...as powers try to justify their actions. Had the United States not outlawed slavery, we never would have had a Civil War. The South was united behind their prejudice. I say that because, in the scheme of things, only the wealthy (for the most part) owned slaves. And, of course, their sons probably didn't fight in the war. Some things never change.

Interestingly enough Lincoln once stated that if keeping slavery as it was meant that he could keep the Union together then he would have kept slavery around. While yes he was personally against slavery he was quite willing to put aside his personal feelings in order to keep the Union intact. I just wish that the South would have believed him.

Letter to Horace Greeley
 
from Kal stang

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.

While that has some truth -it does not go far enough. Southerners who practiced slavery and who defended slavery as a economic good, a social necessity and a political reality, did so despite ample evidence to the contrary that had been around for a long long time in America. To pretend otherwise that they simply did not know any better and were just going along with the program because they knew no other way is ridiculous and contrary to reality and the historical record. Thomas Jefferson - eight decades before the civil war broke out - could sit and write words like "all men are created equal" but yet keep slaves knowing all he time that what he was doing was a moral and ethical betrayal of his own espoused principles. But they did it for money. So this idea that these slave owners were living in some sort of alternate America where they simply knew no other way or knew that what they were doing was highly debatable and even wrong, is to play ostrich and hide your head in the sands of fantasy.

We can judge them by their times and there were plenty of people in those times who knew exactly what they were doing, knew it was wrong and did it anyways as the example of Jefferson illustrates.


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 United Nations is NOT now and never was our nation. As such, we cannot commit treason against it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom