• 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.
I just don't think we should give a damn....
The South got angry for whatever reason they got angry for.
The South Succeeded.
The South told Yankees get the hell out. (Fort Sumter)
Yankees didn't get the hell out.
The South attacks (Doesn't invade).
The Yankees invade.
Them damn yankees win.

Its over and done with. The confederate flag can mean whatever the hell you want it too mean!
But this is America... and were supposed to be free damn it.
That means free to hate America and free to be racist... as long as you don't act upon it.
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
The Confederate flag is as treasonous as the American flag is/was. In the end the CSA did no more to the USA than what the USA did to Britain. The CSA wanted the freedom to do things as their way of life instead of how the "North" wanted to do things which was their way of life. History is written by the winners. How would the Confederate flag be viewed today if the CSA won their bid for freedom as the USA had roughly a century prior?
Click to expand...
I agree that the American flag is treasonous, which is why, had the US not won, it would be a symbol of treason if it were flown in Britain. I am not making an argument about treason in and of itself. I'm making an argument about flying a treasonous flag WITHIN the state that the treason was committed against and the irony/stupidity of that phenomenon.

Probably no worse or better than the German flag is currently. I've heard that the Confederate flag is a symbol of slavery. If so then why isn't the German flag a symbol of Jewish hate?
Click to expand...
The Nazi flag is a symbol of hate. That's the appropriate comparison.
 
Daktoria said:
No thanks. Not only is a flag is nothing but a symbol, but you explicitly talked about exhibiting the flag being treasonous as a demonstration of disloyalty.
Click to expand...
Quote please since that's not true.
 
Free For All said:
Even though I agreed with your post... the German flag isn't considered Jewish hate because the German flag wasn't the symbol of the Nazi regime.
Click to expand...

I just used this quote but it is address to all between my two post who commented on the flag comparison.

I intentionally used the German flag instead of the Nazi flag (well banners really, I don't think I've ever really seen a Nazi flag before) because regardless of the party running it Germany was the country that was exterminating Jews. Likewise regardless of the people running it, elite or otherwise, the CSA was the country wanting to keep slavery. I find it an apt comparison.

to snilloctjc: from my readings over the years, while slavery was among the issues, it was not the top issue (although certainly up there). So I need to disagree with your implied premise that the attempted secession was about preserving slavery. I will grant that I may be misreading in that you may have once believe that slavery wasn't an issue at all and have since revised. I certainly don't fool myself that slavery wasn't on the table. I just find no evidence that it was the only or main issue.
 
maquiscat said:
to snilloctjc: from my readings over the years, while slavery was among the issues, it was not the top issue (although certainly up there). So I need to disagree with your implied premise that the attempted secession was about preserving slavery. I will grant that I may be misreading in that you may have once believe that slavery wasn't an issue at all and have since revised. I certainly don't fool myself that slavery wasn't on the table. I just find no evidence that it was the only or main issue.
Click to expand...

No intention to say slavery was never an issue. My position is that when you dig through all the arguments at the core it boils down to slavery.

States Rights - what right were they determined to perserve? The right to rule on the issue of slavery

Economics - That peculiar institution was necessary to keep the agriculutural engine running - keep slaves

Nullification - the laws they wished to nullify were laws concerning slavery

Sorry but I can find no other reason more powerful than the fight to maintain slavery. Look at the legal and physical battles leading up to the civil war. Dredd Scott, decision, Missouri/Maine Compromise, etc - all were attempts to mitigate the slave issue, and preserve the union.

Other than taking the argument down to individual people there was no issue greater than that of slavery. It fueled the passions of both sides to the point of civil war
 
theplaydrive said:
I agree that the American flag is treasonous, which is why, had the US not won, it would be a symbol of treason if it were flown in Britain. I am not making an argument about treason in and of itself. I'm making an argument about flying a treasonous flag WITHIN the state that the treason was committed against and the irony/stupidity of that phenomenon.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree with you here. You can't really compare the two. Under British rule, the actions of the Revolutionaries were indeed treasonous; however, in 1861 in the USA we had a Constitution (which included the 10th amendment) which did not prohibit the states from seceding. Therefore, secession by the Southern States, under Constitutional Law, could not be defined as treason. There is a specific reason why none of the Confederate leaders were tried and executed for acts of treason. Go back and look at the Supreme Court's (Specifically Chief Justice Chase's) opinions on this matter and you will see.
 
snilloctjc said:
No intention to say slavery was never an issue. My position is that when you dig through all the arguments at the core it boils down to slavery.
Click to expand...
It's more complicated than that, the war, like most boiled down to politics and economics. The politics basically boiled down to the southern states wanting to preserve the compact as written in the constitution and the north wanted more centralized power to the federal, as well there were northern political maneuvers centered around minimizing the south's presence in the federal. The economics revolved around commerce clause issues between the north and south via tariffs on southern goods and a naval blockade. Slavery was a major sub-issue intertwined within the two bigger issues.

States Rights - what right were they determined to perserve? The right to rule on the issue of slavery
Click to expand...
Partially, but they also wanted the northern states to trade fairly, European countries got better economic deals than southern states did on cotton products. That in itself is a good reason to complain.

Economics - That peculiar institution was necessary to keep the agriculutural engine running - keep slaves
Click to expand...
In a way yes, but there would have still been economic grievances had the south unanimously and instantly dissolved the practice. There is a historical theory that slavery was already on the way out with the invention of better equipment that would have made ag. production more efficient, but the south was still catching up on the production end.

Nullification - the laws they wished to nullify were laws concerning slavery
Click to expand...
Among other issues. The north was ignoring much of the ninth and tenth amendments which the south wanted to restore. We still to this day are paying for the mis-interpretation of those two BOR amendments in the way of New Deal, Great Society, the Healthcare Mandate, and other commerce clause and general welfare clause abuses.

Sorry but I can find no other reason more powerful than the fight to maintain slavery. Look at the legal and physical battles leading up to the civil war. Dredd Scott, decision, Missouri/Maine Compromise, etc - all were attempts to mitigate the slave issue, and preserve the union.
Click to expand...
There were plenty of reasons, slavery was the match on the kindling.
 
FluffyNinja said:
I respectfully disagree with you here. You can't really compare the two. Under British rule, the actions of the Revolutionaries were indeed treasonous; however, in 1861 in the USA we had a Constitution (which included the 10th amendment) which did not prohibit the states from seceding. Therefore, secession by the Southern States, under Constitutional Law, could not be defined as treason. There is a specific reason why none of the Confederate leaders were tried and executed for acts of treason. Go back and look at the Supreme Court's (Specifically Chief Justice Chase's) opinions on this matter and you will see.
Click to expand...

FIRST

Whether or not the Confederates committed treason depends on which parts of the Constitution's definition of treason you look at. You are correct that secession specifically is not prohibited. However, levying war against the United States and forming a confederation is prohibited within it. The Confederate states did both.

You have directed me to the Supreme Court as proof that the Confederate states did not commit treason and since your direction implies that you respect the Supreme Court on this issue, I will direct you to the same place, specifically the case of Sprott vs. United States.

In this case the Supreme Court declared:

The government of the Confederate States can receive no aid from this course of reasoning. It had no existence, except as a conspiracy to overthrow lawful authority. Its foundation was treason against the existing Federal government. Its single purpose, so long as it lasted, was to make that treason successful. So far from being necessary to the organization of civil government, or to its maintenance and support, it was inimical to social order, destructive to the best interests of society, and its primary object was to overthrow the government on which these so largely depended. Its existence and temporary power were an enormous evil, which the whole force of the government and the people of the United States was engaged for years in destroying.

Sprott v. United States/Opinion of the Court - Wikisource
Click to expand...

SECOND

One could argue that they levied war and formed a confederation as a separate entity and therefore, did not commit treason, but for that argument, I direct you to the Supreme Court again, specifically the case of Williams v. Bruffy:

The Confederate States was an illegal organization, within the provision of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting any treaty, alliance, or confederation of one state with another, whatever efficacy, therefore, its enactments possessed in any state entering into that organization must be attributed to the sanction given to them by that state.

WILLIAMS V. BRUFFY, 96 U. S. 176 :: Volume 96 :: 1877 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
Click to expand...

To confirm this point of view, I also direct you to one Chief Justice Chase's own cases - Texas v. White:

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. [...]

That board, as we have seen, was organized, not for the defence of the State against a foreign invasion, or for its protection against domestic violence, within the meaning of these words as used in the National Constitution, but for the purpose, under the name of defence, of levying war against the United States. This purpose was, undoubtedly, unlawful, for the acts which it contemplated are, within the express definition of the Constitution, treasonable.

Texas v. White
Click to expand...

THIRD

You have offered the pardon of Confederate leaders as proof that treason was not committed. However, I direct you to Lincoln's proclamation of these pardons as proof that it was treason. In that proclamation, Lincoln declared:

Whereas, a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal state governments of several states have for a long time been subverted, and many persons have committed, and are now guilty of, treason against the United States; and

Whereas, with reference to said rebellion and treason[...]

Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, December 8, 1863
Click to expand...

A pardon is not the same thing as a declaration of innocence.
 
haymarket said:
reality and the historical record show that you are incorrect in your opinion. My opinion on the issues of the Constitution means nothing when the Supreme Court says otherwise. The same for you or anyone else. All the mental gymnastics do not change that reality. All the convoluted logic in the world does not change that reality. All of the connecting the dots with your reasoning skills do not change that reality.

You see Henrin, the argument means nothing to me. What does mean something to me is the reality of the events as they actually did happen and that is reflected in the historical record.
Click to expand...

As I have said to you before the courts can be wrong and the clauses do have meanings. The argument that the union put out in the case was bogus and nothing you can say will change it. As you say, it is historical record they actually thought "to form a more perfect union" not only has power to go with it but means succession is illegal. Care to back that up? Of course not, as they are always right, well, unless we are talking about citizens united and then..well maybe not.

@theplaydrive: You realize that those two paragraphs came after what he referenced made it illegal, yes? That was a grave error on his part making the rest of it null as he put it.

btw, this is dumbest thing I have heard all year...

The government of the Confederate States can receive no aid from this course of reasoning. It had no existence, except as a conspiracy to overthrow lawful authority.
Click to expand...

1) they weren't overthrowing anything, but leaving the authority. Big difference.
2) It wasn't a conspiracy. They were leaving. It was as cut and dry as it gets.
3) They existed to form a new government to leave the control of the union.

The ****ing moron starts with hyperbole. Got to love it.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
@theplaydrive: You realize that those two paragraphs came after what he referenced made it illegal, yes? That was a grave error on his part making the rest of it null as he put it.
Click to expand...
Can you clarify your criticism? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
 
So let me get this straight. If a state decides to take away any right in the constitution, let's say the 2nd amendment, it is unconstitutional. But if a state decides to take away all of them and disobey the constitution completely its constitutional. One of the cons will need to explain that to me.
 
Henrin said:
btw, this is dumbest thing I have heard all year...

1) they weren't overthrowing anything, but leaving the authority. Big difference.
2) It wasn't a conspiracy. They were leaving. It was as cut and dry as it gets.
3) They existed to form a new government to leave the control of the union.

The ****ing moron starts with hyperbole. Got to love it.
Click to expand...
The secession of and attacks by the Confederate states actually fit the definitions of conspiracy and overthrow quite well.
 
theplaydrive said:
The secession of and attacks by the Confederate states actually fit the definitions of conspiracy and overthrow quite well.
Click to expand...

1) The secession itself was the confederacy leaving the union. Nothing happened.
2) The attacks came after aggression from Lincoln and ignoring of the order to leave their country. Lincoln committed acts of war making it warranted.
3) None of this is a conspiracy, but acts to get free and stay free from the aggressor.
 
Henrin said:
As I have said to you before the courts can be wrong and the clauses do have meanings. The argument that the union put out in the case was bogus and nothing you can say will change it. As you say, it is historical record they actually thought "to form a more perfect union" not only has power to go with it but means succession is illegal.
Click to expand...

therein lies your basic error - I am NOT trying to change anything. I am quite satisfied and content with the Court pronouncements on this issue. I am quite content with the results of the successful defeat of the treasonous traitors and their crusade for slavery.

That is the difference here - I accept reality and the historical record for what it is. You obviously are not willing to accept the judgment of history and fight to change it. Lotsa luck with that particular crusade.
 
Henrin said:
1) The secession itself was the confederacy leaving the union. Nothing happened.
2) The attacks came after aggression from Lincoln and ignoring of the order to leave their country. Lincoln committed acts of war making it warranted.
3) None of this is a conspiracy, but acts to get free and stay free from the aggressor.
Click to expand...

Lincoln didn't have to listen to the south because it was his country. Secession is illegal and therefore CSA never existed. It was just aggression from pro-slavery insurgents. And you using the word free is kind of hypocritical. The only reason the south seceded was to avoid freedom.
 
theplaydrive said:
Can you clarify your criticism? I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Click to expand...

I did before. The buttfiller decided to use the "to form a more perfect union" introduction part of the constitution as if it had power. If he was that dumb he needed to go home and put on a diaper and a helmet in all honesty.

And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
Click to expand...

He even gets the point and the shortcomings of the AOC wrong somehow. They didn't put the most power in the feds hands with Constitution as he implies, but instead merely changed up the order of the people and the state. The fed kept its spot at the bottom of the pole like it was before but in his unlimited amount of stupidity he decided that a part of the constitution that was merely the introduction meant the fed was the big boy in the room when nothing in the paper or the founders words on the matter say anything of the sort. In short he was a dumbass.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
1) The secession itself was the confederacy leaving the union. Nothing happened.
Click to expand...
No, the secession including the attack on Fort Sumter and all other actions by the Confederacy during the Civil War. The only thing in which "nothing happened" was the declaration of secession.

2) The attacks came after aggression from Lincoln and ignoring of the order to leave their country. Lincoln committed acts of war making it warranted.
Click to expand...
The Union and the Confederacy viewed Sumter as their property. Who the Fort belonged to was a matter of perspective. Consequently, whoever committed the first act of violence were the ones committed the first act of war. The Confederacy committed the first act of violence - firing shots on what the Union perceived as Union territory (and actually was Union territory since the Confederacy lost never having made it their property).

3) None of this is a conspiracy, but acts to get free and stay free from the aggressor.
Click to expand...
Nope, the Confederacy unlawfully formed a Confederacy and declared war against national authority. That's conspiracy.
 
99percenter said:
So let me get this straight. If a state decides to take away any right in the constitution, let's say the 2nd amendment, it is unconstitutional. But if a state decides to take away all of them and disobey the constitution completely its constitutional. One of the cons will need to explain that to me.
Click to expand...

You do know what a Union (Not the Worker unions) is right?
You do know our name is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA right?
 
Last edited:
It is fundamentally dishonest and an intellectual fraud in the extreme to openly declare your rebellion against the nation to which you belong and then stand back and put your hands in your pockets, shuffle your bare feet back and forth in the dirt and look all doe-eyed and pretend that you did nothing at all to stir up the hornets nest and nothing will come of it. That is either the worst sort of insincere intellectual fraud or downright extreme stupidity if you actually think that the whole thing is over then and there and everything from that point on is the fault of the nation who you effectively told to F off.

And anybody today who defends that sort of fraud is just as bad and dishonest.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
therein lies your basic error - I am NOT trying to change anything. I am quite satisfied and content with the Court pronouncements on this issue. I am quite content with the results of the successful defeat of the treasonous traitors and their crusade for slavery.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't be happy with errors even if they work for you. And like I explained it was not treason.

That is the difference here - I accept reality and the historical record for what it is. You obviously are not willing to accept the judgment of history and fight to change it. Lotsa luck with that particular crusade.
Click to expand...

I will fight bad rulings in the courts if I can. You would as well if you knew what was good for you. Sadly, I fear you don't have a clue.
 
Henrin said:
I did before. The buttfiller decided to use the "to form a more perfect union" introduction part of the constitution as if it had power. If he was that dumb he needed to go home and put on a diaper and a helmet in all honesty.

He even gets the point and the shortcomings of the AOC wrong somehow. They didn't put the most power in the feds hands with Constitution as he implies, but instead merely changed up the order of the people and the state. The fed kept its spot at the bottom of the pole like it was before but in his unlimited amount of stupidity he decided that a part of the constitution that was merely the introduction meant the fed was the big boy in the room when nothing in the paper or the founders words on the matter say anything of the sort. In short he was a dumbass.
Click to expand...
So you don't like his interpretation of the Constitution which makes him a dumbass. This is not a premise on which fruitful conversation can be had.
 
Treason in the Constitution is levying war against the United States and forming a confederation. The Confederacy fired the first shots on Fort Sumter - therefore, they levied war against the United States while being members of the Union (and also formed a confederation).

In order for their actions to have NOT been treason, they would have to have been a separate country. In order for them to have been a separate country, they would have had to make themselves a separate country. They did not. They tried, but they failed. Declaration of independence is not independence. Independence must be be fought for and won. They declared, they fought and they lost. Consequently, they were and will always remain a failed insurrection - a treasonous confederation of states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom