• 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.
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...

We are an formation of nations united. Goddammit, you are horrible at your history.
 
Free For All said:
“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”
Click to expand...
Yeah, I am aware of this. However, treason was specifically outlined in the Constitution - their actions were prohibited.
 
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...

Yes, we follow the constitution. Could you please point out the clause in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to restrict withdrawal from the union. If you cannot, then, per the 10th amendment, that must be one of those reserved powers that the states never granted to their union.

So, per the constitution, states are free to leave.
 
Henrin said:
We are an formation of nations united. Goddammit, you are horrible at your history.
Click to expand...
History is relevant for history. At some point - we became a SINGLE NATION. We are not a group of nations like the United Nations is. I can't believe you're arguing this which pretty much says to me that you're trolling.
 
theplaydrive said:
The US is a federal constitutional republic.
Click to expand...

No, the united states are a federation of republics. They are not a republic. There's a huge difference. One that I really shouldn't have to articulate for you.
 
Centinel said:
No, the united states are a federation of republics. They are not a republic. There's a huge difference. One that I really shouldn't have to articulate for you.
Click to expand...
Okay, you guys are trolls. The end.
 
theplaydrive said:
Yeah, I am aware of this. However, treason was specifically outlined in the Constitution - their actions were prohibited.
Click to expand...

Leaving the union is not treason. Treason is to make war against the united states. Peacefully and lawfully leaving the union is not making war.
 
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.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's a perfect description! :lamo

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

Actually, yes. South Carolina called for the evacuation of Fort Sumter for several months, prior to lauching an attack.
 
Centinel said:
Leaving the union is not treason. Treason is to make war against the united states. Peacefully and lawfully leaving the union is not making war.
Click to expand...
Then it's a good thing they didn't leave peacefully and lawfully.
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

But, ya'll disagreed after the Civil War ended.
 
apdst said:
But, ya'll disagreed after the Civil War ended.
Click to expand...
No, we didn't. Lincoln called the war a "civil war" meaning a war between members of the same country, throughout the war. I posted the quotes earlier in the thread. The Supreme Court I don't know because I haven't looked. The Union pretty much always th
 
theplaydrive said:
No, we didn't. Lincoln called the war a "civil war" meaning a war between members of the same country, throughout the war. I posted the quotes earlier in the thread. The Supreme Court I don't know because I haven't looked. The Union pretty much always th
Click to expand...

We're not even talking about what the war was called. Please, try and keep up.
 
apdst said:
We're not even talking about what the war was called. Please, try and keep up.
Click to expand...
No, you keep up. We were talking about who "had" Fort Sumter - or rightfully owned it. Lincoln's use of "civil war" illustrates his belief that the union rightfully owned that land because using "civil war" means that he did not acknowledge the existence of a separate country.

I tried to write that in simple sentences for you. Did you get it?
 
theplaydrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

The case you reference was heard in 1874, thirteen years after the act of secession was committed and nine years after Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase declared to President Lincoln that the Supreme Court could never uphold a treason conviction for any Confederate based on the fact that there was NOTHING in the Constitution at the time which made Secession illegal. As far as "taking up arms" is concerned, it was the US that launched an invasion of the CSA thus provoking the insuing war, this is irrefutable. Your premise here, regarding this 1874 decision, is supported quite flimsily by the remarks of one justice in a case which stemmed from a lawsuit initiated by a Southerner regarding lack of compensation for seized cotton. :shrug: This was not a Declaration of treason against the Confederates. If it were, then why was no one put on trial?


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:



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

First allow me to correct your biggest inconsistency in this statement: The Confederation was formed FIRST. THEN war insued. Placing these into the correct chronology then causes us to beg the question: "Which side initiated the war?" Claiming that the Confederacy was formed with the sole purpose of waging war against the United States is simply fallacious and could/would not have held up under legal scrutiny.

Regarding Williams vs. Bruffy which was decided sixteen years AFTER Secession; it's sole function
was to nullify all laws, and "legal" property rights which had been established by the CSA during the war years. It served to basically, return legal jurisdiction to the Constitution and to the United States government. Most view this case as simply procedural when a conquering nation wishes to incorporate (or in this case, reincorporate) territory gained. :shrug:

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:
Click to expand...

First, I never said anything about a pardon. My contention was that charges of treason against Confederates was never Constitutionally legal to begin with.

Most historians and legal experts would agree that Lincoln's proclamation of amnesty was pointless and more for PR and political expediency. I've already pointed out to you that Lincoln was told by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that charges of treason were not Constitutional in this case and would not stick. And this came from a Republican justice who had worked directly under Lincoln at one point.

Oh, and in reference to the partial statement from Texas vs White which you boldened; wasn't the Court referring to the Military Board of Texas and not the entire Confederate government?
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Okay, you guys are trolls. The end.
Click to expand...

You are really bad at this without doubt. Now you know you just lost and there is no possible way to win so you go calling everyone a troll. Great.

As for your post to me, that was already covered.
 
The case you reference was heard in 1874, thirteen years after the act of secession was committed and nine years after Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase declared to President Lincoln that the Supreme Court could never uphold a treason conviction for any Confederate based on the fact that there was NOTHING in the Constitution at the time which made Secession illegal.
Click to expand...

That is what makes Chase so obviously full of it in 1869 just a few years before 1874. If what he said was true in 1869 then his statement in 1874 is not only humorous but telling. So which is it Chase? Was it illegal or not? Did it fall under the introduction or not? Does the introduction have power chase? Lol.
 
Henrin said:
You are really bad at this without doubt. Now you know you just lost and there is no possible way to win so you go calling everyone a troll. Great.

As for your post to me, that was already covered.
Click to expand...
I thought calling you trolls was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry.
 
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 Confederates WERE indeed acting under the US Constitution when the Confederate States exercised their "Constitutional Right" to secede. :shrug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom