• 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.
Thunder said:
honestly folks, the unprovoked attack upon Fort Sumter by the Rebels is evidence that the Confederacy was just a bunch of racist thugs & thieves.

did they first try to negotiate a peaceful withdrawal of American troops from the fort? nope.
Click to expand...

They told em' too leave. If they would of left no problem....
 
Henrin said:
You really have no idea what you are talking about. They already had it. They HAD it! They needed to protect it from a body that had to ignore its own laws to fight against it.
Click to expand...
Well, me, Lincoln, the Supreme Court and the rest of the Union disagree.

Saying "they had it" literally means nothing. It's embarrassing that you don't understand that.
 
rocket88 said:
The EU is a federation of sovereign states.
Click to expand...

Okay.

The United States is not.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that prior to ratifying the constitution, the states were not sovereign?
Or are you suggesting that the states relinquished their sovereignty when they formed their compact?

Still waiting for someone to defend how the Constitution is worth about the same as Kim Kardashian's wedding vows.
Click to expand...

Don't wait for me to defend you statement. It's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Why should they leave? It was their property. Still is.
Click to expand...

Didn't say they had to leave... I'm just sayng thats why the war started.
I'm proud that they stayed... I'm glad they fought the south and won. But don't tell me I can't be prideful in my heritage.
 
For all those who think the Confederacy had the right to Fort Sumter just because SC had declared secession:

Do you feel the same way about every group that declares secession/independence? For example, the Kurds in Iraq?

Last time I checked, you have to fight for independence, you can't just say "We're a new nation! This is our land!" Why does this not apply to the Confederacy?
 
Thunder said:
tell us, exactly how many nations & international institutions recognized the sovereignity of the CSA?
Click to expand...

England and France, for starters. Although, it's irrelevant.
 
theplaydrive said:
For all those who think the Confederacy had the right to Fort Sumter just because SC had declared secession:

Do you feel the same way about every group that declares secession/independence? For example, the Kurds in Iraq?

Last time I checked, you have to fight for independence, you can't just say "We're a new nation! This is our land!" Why does this not apply to the Confederacy?
Click to expand...

In the case of the Kurds, yes.
 
theplaydrive said:
For all those who think the Confederacy had the right to Fort Sumter just because SC had declared secession:

Do you feel the same way about every group that declares secession/independence? For example, the Kurds in Iraq?

Last time I checked, you have to fight for independence, you can't just say "We're a new nation! This is our land!" Why does this not apply to the Confederacy?
Click to expand...

Before the sovereign and independent states formed their union, each was its own nation. They then formed a union. The union was a federation of nations, not a nation. A federation of nations is not a nation, just as a federation of bowling alleys is not a bowling alley.

If a states decides to leave the federation, that state is not creating a new nation. It was already a preexisting nation. It is simply relinquishing its membership in the federation it had voluntarily joined. There is no rebellion. There is no treason. There is simply leaving a union of sovereign and independent states.
 
Centinel said:
Before the sovereign and independent states formed their union, each was its own nation. They then formed a union. The union was a federation of nations, not a nation. A federation of nations is not a nation, just as a federation of bowling alleys is not a bowling alley.

If a states decides to leave the federation, that state is not creating a new nation. It was already a preexisting nation. It is simply relinquishing its membership in the federation it had voluntarily joined. There is no rebellion. There is no treason. There is simply leaving a union of sovereign and independent states.
Click to expand...
Where is this in the Constitution? Where does it say - this is a federation of independent nations?

You keep trying to compare the United States to something like the United Nations, but it really isn't like that.
 
Thunder said:
were the individual Provinces of British America....sovereign entities?

this is the first time I'm hearing of this.
Click to expand...

You might want to read the treaty of Paris. In it, England recognizes each of its former colonies, individually by name, as sovereign and independent states.
 
theplaydrive said:
Well, me, Lincoln, the Supreme Court and the rest of the Union disagree.
Click to expand...

At the time 1861 Lincoln and the union were thought to be violating the law. It wasn't until after the war did THEY get to decide that wasn't true with bogus claims about things they didn't bother to defend(you haven't either) and were in opposition to what the author and the rest of the founders thought on the subject.


Saying "they had it" literally means nothing. It's embarrassing that you don't understand that.
Click to expand...

It means everything if you understood my argument at all. It was illegal for them to fight against it. I know shocker..
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Where is this in the Constitution? Where does it say - this is a federation of independent nations?

You keep trying to compare the United States to something like the United Nations, but it really isn't like that.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sorry but it is. Maybe you should actually read about how the country was formed and how that didn't change fundamentally even if liberals say it did after the AOC? Just a suggestion.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Where is this in the Constitution? Where does it say - this is a federation of independent nations?

You keep trying to compare the United States to something like the United Nations, but it really isn't like that.
Click to expand...

It's not in the constitution. It is a historical fact. After winning their independence from Britain, the former colonies became sovereign and independent nation-states.

They then entered into a union, and nothing in the terms of that union indicates that they relinquished their sovereignty.

The united states are very much like the united nations. However, the united states have agreed to abide by more restrictions and have delegated more powers to their union. But essentially, the two organizations are the same in that they are federations of sovereign and independent nation-states.
 
Henrin said:
Well I'm sorry but it is. Maybe you should actually read about how the country was formed and how that didn't change fundamentally even if liberals say it did after the AOC? Just a suggestion.
Click to expand...
It's actually not at all. The fact that you believe it is makes me regret that I thought we could debate seriously.

The UN is an international organization. The US is a federal constitutional republic. There's a huge difference. One that I really shouldn't have to articulate for you.
 
Thunder said:
I'm sorry, but this is 100% incorrect. New York, Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, were not seperate nations before 1787.
Click to expand...


Well this sure says it right here I do believe.

Thus, the force and effectiveness of this sovereignty which was thus “retained” from the Declaration of Independence, was equivalent to that of any other nation; this was made clear in the Declaration, via the statement:

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do” (emphasis in original).
Click to expand...
 
Thunder said:
I'm sorry, but this is 100% incorrect. New York, Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, were not seperate nations before 1787.
Click to expand...

Treaty of Paris (1783) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Acknowledging the United States to be free, sovereign and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;
Click to expand...

The actual text of the treaty:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
It's not in the constitution.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Constitution is what we follow. If you're operating by something other than the Constitution, you're argument holds no water. And again, the United States is not like the United Nations at all. The United States is a nation. The United Nations is an organization of nations.
 
theplaydrive said:
It's actually not at all. The fact that you believe it is makes me regret that I thought we could debate seriously.

The UN is an international organization. The US is a federal constitutional republic. There's a huge difference. One that I really shouldn't have to articulate for you.
Click to expand...

Did you even read Centinel wrote about that or are you just playing blind?
 
theplaydrive said:
Exactly. The Constitution is what we follow. If you're operating by something other than the Constitution, you're argument holds no water. And again, the United States is not like the United Nations at all. The United States is a nation. The United Nations is an organization of nations.
Click to expand...

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom