• 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.
Yes it was.
No, it wasn't. Saying something is yours doesn't make it yours. The United States wasn't independent until it won. The Confederacy never won - it was never independent and consequently owned nothing.
 
Congratulations, you have just made the most incorrect statement in Debate Politics history. There is no prize, but you do get the consolation of knowing this post stood out. Thank you and good luck in your future endeavors.

That's not even close to the most incorrect statement in DP history. I doubt it would even make the top 100 list this week.
 
Congratulations, you have just made the most incorrect statement in Debate Politics history. There is no prize, but you do get the consolation of knowing this post stood out. Thank you and good luck in your future endeavors.

Perhaps you can back up your insult with a point by point analysis?
 
No it wasn't.
Yes it was. If Cuba decides to end the lease of Guantanimo bay it is no longer U.S. territory. That is the most accurate analogy of the Fort Sumter issue, when the south said GTFO the fort was no longer within federal territory. I don't understand how people can't understand that. Or is it Won't?
 
Perhaps you can back up your insult with a point by point analysis?
Don't have to, you've been schooled across this forum on historical and constitutional issues. I've watched you contort your interpretations of these matters since you've been here.
 
The Tenth Amendment does absolutely nothing to contradict the fact that the states committed treason according to the definition in the Constitution.

Whatever that means.

So I have arguments, court rulings, the Constitutional definition of treason and presidential documents ... and you have ... snark. Thank you for your concession. This was fun.

I have the founders and even the author of the paper that says you are full of ****. You have people that just fought an illegal war trying to avoid jail.
 
Yes it was. If Cuba decides to end the lease of Guantanimo bay it is no longer U.S. territory. That is the most accurate analogy of the Fort Sumter issue, when the south said GTFO the fort was no longer within federal territory. I don't understand how people can't understand that. Or is it Won't?

Wasn't the Confederacy founded on property rights? What gave South Carolina the right to take United States military property?
 
I have the founders and even the author of the paper that says you are full of ****. You have people that just fought an illegal war trying to avoid jail.
Actually, you don't, but I can see that you're more interested in posturing and insulting than actually using logic. Suit yourself.

The Confederate states committed treason by the definition in the Constitution. The end. :)
 
Wasn't the Confederacy founded on property rights? What gave South Carolina the right to take United States military property?
It was on southern land, it was funded at least in part by southern dollars, the north and south split so the binding contracts and treaties were null and void. And finally, it was on southern land.
 
It was on southern land, it was funded at least in part by southern dollars, the north and south split so the binding contracts and treaties were null and void. And finally, it was on southern land.
It was on US land.
 
I don't recall brushing you off.
Sure you have. I bring up points and you play this little "nuh-uh" game. I can't pinpoint how to describe it but it's something I've been picking up on.
 
It was on southern land, it was funded at least in part by southern dollars, the north and south split so the binding contracts and treaties were null and void. And finally, it was on southern land.

Translation: Property rights don't mean **** if we want it.
 
Don't have to, you've been schooled across this forum on historical and constitutional issues. I've watched you contort your interpretations of these matters since you've been here.

really? Perhaps I was out of town when that happened. Could you link to it please?
 
Can someone explain to me why the Confederates had property rights for Fort Sumter?
 
Not according to it's location.
Actually, yes. Can you show me when the United States gave up property rights? I don't recall the government ever signing that contract.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom