• 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.
Kal'Stang said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because the north wanted to make sure they accepted certain conditions like the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Learn history. Slavery may have been a major part of the civil war but it was not the ONLY reason.
Click to expand...
No it was the only. They said so in there secessionist documents. Everything else pivots off of slavery.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maggie - while the large slave holders were indeed the wealthy, not all slave holders were wealthy unless we consider a full 1/4 of Southern whites to be wealthy.

Antebellum slavery

The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer. Whites who did not own slaves were primarily yeoman farmers. Practically speaking, the institution of slavery did not help these people. And yet most non-slaveholding white Southerners identified with and defended the institution of slavery. Though many resented the wealth and power of the large slaveholders, they aspired to own slaves themselves and to join the priviledged ranks. In addition, slavery gave the farmers a group of people to feel superior to. They may have been poor, but they were not slaves, and they were not black. They gained a sense of power simply by being white.
Click to expand...

Racism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Approximately one Southern family in four held slaves prior to war. According to the 1860 U.S. census, there were about 385,000 slaveowners out of approximately 1.5 million white families.[30]
Click to expand...

So while only a quarter of Southern whites did own slaves, the institution itself did have wide support among non slave owners because it gave them a sense of power and superiority and for some of them that was worth fighting for.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Your first post was very accusatory and negative. You clearly do think it's a bad thing in this case,
Click to expand...
In this case. You said it yourself. In this case. And again, none of our arguments rest upon the value judgment. You can say that treason, in this case, was good and my argument still stands. So, once again, I'll repeat:

"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."
or at least that no one who flies it can be a patriot.
Click to expand...
False. That's a misinterpretation of my position - a misinterpretation I can understand having re-read my OP. Many people who fly it are patriots (in my opinion), which is why I think it's ironic for them to fly it.

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.
Click to expand...
This actually isn't about whether the flag is offensive which is why I tried not to start a "but the flag offends me vs. stop whining" argument which discussions about this flag often lead to. I specifically made it about treason because it is something that can be objectively determined and that is rarely ever addressed head on. Most people usually argue about whether it's offensive, but I find this topic more interesting.

So you can distort my position and ignore the entire subject of this OP and make it about whether or not the flag is offensive, but that choice has nothing to do with me. As far as I'm concerned, all the people who have come in here saying, "this is really just about being offended" chose to disregard the actual words of my post. The treason discussion can stand on it's own. Oh and BTW, spare me the "oh good, non sequitor" act. Both of your posts consisted of nothing but strawmen and ad homs.
 
theplaydrive said:
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.


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?
Click to expand...

I do know that Senator Charles Sumner believed that since the states called for secession the states had commited "felo de se" or "state suicide" and as such they should be considered as nothing more than conquered territories.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just because people claimed it was wrong does not mean that slaveholders knew it was wrong. Galileo had proof that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around, even had supporters of it. Yet he was denounced and believed to be wrong.


haymarket said:
The United Nations is NOT now and never was our nation. As such, we cannot commit treason against it
Click to expand...

I never said it was our nation. But we are a part of it, signatory to it even. Like the states are a part of this nation, the US is a part of the several nations that make up the UN.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I do know that Senator Charles Sumner believed that since the states called for secession the states had commited "felo de se" or "state suicide" and as such they should be considered as nothing more than conquered territories.
Click to expand...
Meh, one senator doesn't do much for particularly considering that people called it a civil war in the midst of it.
 
theplaydrive said:
Meh, one senator doesn't do much for particularly considering that people called it a civil war in the midst of it.
Click to expand...

You do know that Sumner and Congressman Thaddeus Stevens were leaders of the Radical Republicans at the time right? And those under him no doubt believed the same? He was also responsible for overriding some of President Johnson's vetoes during the Reconstruction? That alone shows that he had quite a bit of support among other Senators.
 
theplaydrive said:
AAARRRRGGHHH!
Click to expand...

Spare you, eh? Then perhaps you should:
1. Learn how articulate your argument getting without letting it be muddled in sounding angry and condescending.
2. Stop responding to virtually everything with ad homs, particularly the exaggerated and gesticulated "woe to my eyes" type you tend to do, and maybe if you do that...
3. ...you won't get called on it by people who wish you'd just get over yourself already.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Stop responding to virtually everything with ad homs
Click to expand...
Do you realize that your initial post called me and those who share my arguments "hacks"? Really? Do you realize that your entire point was a response to an argument that was never made?

You get what you ask for. Don't start off calling me a hack and I'll respond to you with respect.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Just because people claimed it was wrong does not mean that slaveholders knew it was wrong. Galileo had proof that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around, even had supporters of it. Yet he was denounced and believed to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Baloney. Galileo was but a voice in the wilderness and is a really bad comparison. Apples and cinderblocks really. As DeNiro said in the DEERHUNTER... "this is this, this isn't something else, this is this."

People all over the South knew that others felt slavery was a wrong and a moral evil and they constructed a political system both in the state and doing what they could nationally to protect it. They made a purposeful, intellectual and deliberate choice to embrace slavery and defend slavery in the face of the many arguments against it.

No less Son of the Proud South than Thomas Jefferson, a holder of many slaves himself, knew this but owned slaves despite it allowing the economics of the situation out win out over what he knew to be the morality of the situation.

http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

He considered it contrary to the laws of nature that decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. He called the institution an "abominable crime," a "moral depravity," a "hideous blot," and a "fatal stain" that deformed "what nature had bestowed on us of her fairest gifts."
Click to expand...

But he still owned them, hundreds of them, and profited from them just the same despite his awareness and his moral certainty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery
Thomas Jefferson, a world-famous advocate of liberty, lived in a slave society; he had a 5,000-acre plantation and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime.[1] He relied on slavery to support his family's lifestyle.[2] Jefferson's contemporary racial views that African Americans were inferior to whites and needed supervision were rationalized into his Enlightenment ideals that condemned slavery
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
You do know that Sumner and Congressman Thaddeus Stevens were leaders of the Radical Republicans at the time right? And those under him no doubt believed the same? He was also responsible for overriding some of President Johnson's vetoes during the Reconstruction? That alone shows that he had quite a bit of support among other Senators.
Click to expand...
You do realize that President Lincoln was the President and the Supreme Court was the Supreme Court and both referred to it as a civil war? At best, whether people considered them a separate entity during the war is ambiguous.
 
haymarket said:
Baloney. Galileo was but a voice in the wilderness and is a really bad comparison. Apples and cinderblocks really. As DeNiro said in the DEERHUNTER... "this is this, this isn't something else, this is this."
Click to expand...

A voice with followers. IE there were a bunch of people that knew the truth, stated it, and yet was still not believed.

haymarket said:
People all over the South knew that others felt slavery was a wrong and a moral evil and they constructed a political system both in the state and doing what they could nationally to protect it. They made a purposeful, intellectual and deliberate choice to embrace slavery and defend slavery in the face of the many arguments against it.
Click to expand...

Since Galileo didn't work for you how about another example? There are millions of people that believe God exists and yet there are millions of people that believe that God doesn't exist. Which one is true or not doesn't matter. What the people believe is what we are talking about. You claim that they all knew better due to all the people stating the facts. If that was true then why doesn't everyone believe in God? Or are athiests?
 
theplaydrive said:
You do realize that President Lincoln was the President and the Supreme Court was the Supreme Court and both referred to it as a civil war? At best, whether people considered them a separate entity during the war is ambiguous.
Click to expand...

I don't know if Lincoln did say such thing. However I tend to disregard rulings by the SCOTUS when it comes secession. They were obviously biased and let that biasness show during that time.
 
rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

When you consider it took 12 years to create a constitution that all 13 colonies would agree to, an, "agreable arrangement", would be a good way to describe it. If everyone that claims some sort of power held by the central government, then the colonies should have been forced to ratify the Constitution alot sooner.
 
haymarket said:
When somebody like apdst keeps repeating the meme that you cannot judge this by today but must put yourself in the mindset of the southern slave owner in the 1850's to properly understand that this is only a property rights issue, YES, that is justification and defense of slavery and lets not make a mistake by judging it otherwise.



Attempting to destroy the United States of America by destroying the union of the States, forming an enemy nation, and then taking up arms in a war against the USA is indeed treason.
Click to expand...

That's where you're going wrong, again. Nowhere have I justified, or defended slavery. Political correctness can make people see things the wrong way and once tey start seeing one thing the wrong way, they see everything the wrong way.
 
Wow, this thread is still going. I don't think that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason currently since it is not actively pursued as representing rebellion. However, it certainly was a symbol of treason and it was certainly renounced when the South lost. The Confederate Flag is a symbol of losers, wanna be rebels holding onto some grossly ignorant notion of the "south rising again". It won't. The South lost. It's done, it's over. The North was superior and won out in the end. Our flag lived, theirs dissolves.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I don't know if Lincoln did say such thing. However I tend to disregard rulings by the SCOTUS when it comes secession. They were obviously biased and let that biasness show during that time.
Click to expand...

Also one thing you should consider theplaydrive is that since the SCOTUS did rule that the secession was illegal then that meant that the States were legally still a part of the Union. As such they did not have to apply to become states again and quite possibly more important...they were refused thier right to representation gaurunteed by the Constitution for each and every state that was a member of the Union. And according to the Constitution that representitive had to come from each of those states. Does this not seem contradictory to you?

Edit note: IE thier actions don't support what was/has been said.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

You haven't presented a single link to prove me wrong. All you have given us up to this point are insults, harassment and talking points. I, on the other hand, have posted dozens of links.
 
Ikari said:
Wow, this thread is still going. I don't think that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of treason currently since it is not actively pursued as representing rebellion. However, it certainly was a symbol of treason and it was certainly renounced when the South lost. The Confederate Flag is a symbol of losers, wanna be rebels holding onto some grossly ignorant notion of the "south rising again". It won't. The South lost. It's done, it's over. The North was superior and won out in the end. Our flag lived, theirs dissolves.
Click to expand...

They didn't win because they were superior, but that's a whole different thread. :rofl
 
apdst said:
They didn't win because they were superior, but that's a whole different thread. :rofl
Click to expand...

Whatever get's you to sleep at night. Maybe some more S'mores schnapps. Hahahaha.

But whatever, South lost. Their flag can go with them. Into the past and into memory.
 
Ikari said:
Whatever get's you to sleep at night. Maybe some more S'mores schnapps. Hahahaha.

But whatever, South lost. Their flag can go with them. Into the past and into memory.
Click to expand...

Right, the South did lose, but there's no need to revise history to state that fact. Thatone comment is a perfect example of how people have come to believe that slavery was the soul reason that the south seceded.
 
apdst said:
They didn't win because they were superior, but that's a whole different thread. :rofl
Click to expand...

I agree. The North won because the South was inferior. :rofl
 
Kal'Stang said:
I don't know if Lincoln did say such thing. However I tend to disregard rulings by the SCOTUS when it comes secession. They were obviously biased and let that biasness show during that time.
Click to expand...
I do.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war

Gettysburg Address - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

render thanks to our Heavenly Father for these inestimable blessings, that they then and there implore spiritual consolation in behalf of all who have been brought into affliction by the casualties and calamities of sedition and civil war

Abraham Lincoln: Proclamation 88 - Day of Public Thanksgiving for Victories During the Civil War
Click to expand...

And whereas, when our own beloved Country, once, by the blessing of God, united, prosperous and happy, is now afflicted with faction and civil war,

Abraham Lincoln declares day of fasting - August 12, 1861
Click to expand...

So we have a Senator and a President. We also have the Supreme Court, but we can remove them if you'd like to. Like I said, at best ambiguous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom