• 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.
FluffyNinja said:
My contention was that charges of treason against Confederates was never Constitutionally legal to begin with.
Click to expand...
I was going to respond point by point, but I'm starting to get bored of this tomfoolery, particularly since you've dismissed the documents I provided you for arbitrary reasons.

For my position on why your position is absolute nonsense, I'll provide you with a link to Chief Justice Chase's own words.

War, therefore, levied against the United States by members of the Republic under the pretended authority of the new state government of North Carolina, or the new central government which assumed the title of the "Confederate States", was treason against the United States.

Shortridge v. Macon, 22 F. Cas. 20, 21 (C.C.D. N.C. 1867).
Click to expand...

You should also study Texas v. White if you think the part I bolded only applied to Texas. Your main problem is that you assume that not putting Confederates on trial and Chase thinking that the trial was a waste of time is evidence that they believed treason did not occur. This conclusion is contradicted by their public statements and by their court rulings which you have chosen to dismiss for arbitrary reasons. I'm over those arbitrary dismissals. Have fun with that.
 
Centinel said:
Treaty of Paris (1783) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The actual text of the treaty:
Click to expand...

OK, that covers the original 13. AT which point in its history was Arkansas an independent nation that freely joined the Union? Most, if not all of it, was part of Louisiana Territory, which passed from French possession to the US. It was French territory, then American -- never independent.

So how did Arkansas freely join the federation? For that matter, what about Iowa, North Dakota or Wyoming?
 
Last edited:
My great, great grandfather and his brothers served in Maxie Gregg's 12th South Carolina Volunteers. They fought in some of the worst of it including the Wilderness and the Bloody Angle. I am immensely proud and always have been. Their stories have been passed down from generation to generation. My g-g-grandfather lived to be 86 and my grandmother lived to be 107. The stories passed down didn't travel far from first hand.

When someone starts running down the Confederate Battle Flag prejudice and ignorance against Southern people are never far behind. Many people don't understand it and I don't actually expect them to but the Southland has a culture that no other region of the United States has. Good or bad or whatever, it is what it is. If you didn't grow up in it and if you weren't brought up culturally Southern I don't see how you would understand it. Nonetheless it gets to a point sometimes in these discussions when people start talking about my people, my heritage, my culture and my Dixie. At that point you step over a line. In truth, playdrive, we don't owe you an explanation, a defense or an excuse. Most Southern folks aren't going to change from that. We aren't asking you for acceptance. If you are Southern born and bred then you know this is not an issue you bring other people into.

Southern by the grace of God.

Risky
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
In truth, playdrive, we don't owe you an explanation, a defense or an excuse. Most Southern folks aren't going to change from that. We aren't asking you for acceptance. If you are Southern born and bred then you know this is not an issue you bring other people into.
Click to expand...
Here is one of my first posts in this thread. I've made several similar posts:

theplaydrive said:
Perhaps. There are many people in this country who have ancestors who fought in the war and the flag represents the bravery of those who fought for what they believed in. It is putting a lot of weight to what simply represents the fortitude of some people's ancestors fighting for principles and that many of their descendants still believe in today.
Click to expand...

In other words, I understand your perspective. You and others refuse to understand mine. I have said several times that the flag represents many things - treason, slavery and racism on one end and fortitude, pride and principle on the other. For some reason, I am expected to accept the "Southern cultural" explanation of the flag's meaning, but none of you are expected to even consider the validity of my viewpoint (which is shared by many others).

Here are some facts:

1. This isn't a South vs. North issue. There are many Southerners (many in this thread) who agree with me about the meaning of the flag and the validity of the CSA so I don't know what the hell you plan on telling them since your entire criticism of me is based on my not being in the South.

2. You aren't the only one who can read a history book and come to a legitimate conclusion.

3. I and others have already acknowledged the legitimacy of your opinion and attachment to the flag, it's people like you who preach to us who haven't afforded us the same courtesy, so frankly you can kiss my ass.

4. I never said you "owe me" anything. Get over yourself.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Here is one of my first posts in this thread. I've made several similar posts:



In other words, I understand your perspective. You and others refuse to understand mine. I have said several times that the flag represents many things - treason, slavery and racism on one end and fortitude, pride and principle on the other. For some reason, I am expected to accept the "Southern cultural" explanation of the flag's meaning, but none of you are expected to even consider the validity of my viewpoint (which is shared by many others).

Here are some facts:

1. This isn't a South vs. North issue. There are many Southerners (many in this thread) who agree with me about the meaning of the flag and the validity of the CSA so I don't know what the hell you plan on telling them since your entire criticism of me is based on my not being in the South.

2. You aren't the only one who can read a history book and come to a legitimate conclusion.

3. I and others have already acknowledge the legitimacy of your opinion and attachment to the flag, it's people like you who preach to us who haven't afforded us the same courtesy, so frankly you can kiss my ass.

4. I never said you "owe me" anything. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, Southern folks don't kiss anybody ass. Beyond that, it is obvious you have attempted, rather pathetically, to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Have dirt balls and asshats used the battle flag for their own misguided purposes? Indeed they have. That's been established on this thread. You have, for reasons I can only guess, decided to drag it on further and further and further.

And I would add that, 59% of the respondents to your own poll disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
First and foremost, Southern folks don't kiss anybody ass.
Click to expand...
I have a friend that directly contradicts this "all Southern people have the same culture" nonsense.

Beyond that, it is obvious you have attempted, rather pathetically, to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Have dirt balls and asshats used the battle flag for their own misguided purposes? Indeed they have. That's been established on this thread. You have, for reasons I can only guess, decided to drag it on further and further and further.
Click to expand...
I haven't decided to drag anything on. I've made simple statements and people like you have turned my comments into something they are not, so I've had to clarify over and over again that you all are full of it. Like I said, I'm expected to acknowledge the validity of your position and you can't afford me and others of the same position the same courtesy.
 
theplaydrive said:
I was going to respond point by point, but I'm starting to get bored of this tomfoolery, particularly since you've dismissed the documents I provided you for arbitrary reasons.

For my position on why your position is absolute nonsense, I'll provide you with a link to Chief Justice Chase's own words.



You should also study Texas v. White if you think the part I bolded only applied to Texas. Your main problem is that you assume that not putting Confederates on trial and Chase thinking that the trial was a waste of time is evidence that they believed treason did not occur. This conclusion is contradicted by their public statements and by their court rulings which you have chosen to dismiss for arbitrary reasons. I'm over those arbitrary dismissals. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...
These Supreme Court decisions which you cite are just that, opinions (interpretations). I might add that all of these "interpretations" by justices which state that the Confederacy was illegal, were made on very shaky Constitutional grounds. This is precisely why such statements were made in ancillary court renderings.........because the SCOTUS KNEW (from Chase's own early observations) THEY HAD NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS AT THE TIME WITH WHICH TO UPHOLD TREASON CONVICTIONS FOR CONFEDERATES. (I used extra large font, hoping, beyond hope, that it may sink in this time.) :lol:

In addition; I presume that you are familiar with ex post facto rulings? Could the courts legally go back and try these men for actions which they committed seventeen years earlier when said actions were Constitutionally admissable?

I'm repeating my question: Were any Confederates tried for treason? Lincoln wanted them tried. Andrew Johnson wanted Jefferson Davis tried. Many notable Republicans in Congress and abolitionists wanted them tried. Even Chief Justice Chase himself (admitted in later conversations with Lincoln and Johnson) felt that J.Davis was a traitor and should stand trial. So why no trials? Why the amnesty? The answer is simple.....these were intelligent men who were smart enough to recognize Constitutional limitations and they knew that in order to remain true to Constitutional principles, they could not try these men for treason.

I'm done. The word "traitor" is like "racist" in that it is thrown around so flippantly that most simply choose to ignore it's legal implications. By law, these men were not guilty of treason. If you choose to label them as "traitors" and, therefore, their flag as a symbol of their "treason," then, hey, knock yourself out dude. But remember, history doesn't lie, only those who choose to revise it to their own ends do. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
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...

There is no way to leave the union peacefully. Secession is explicitly prohibited by our constitution and therefore the federal govt had to act. If a state tries to secede, it is an act of war.
 
99percenter said:
There is no way to leave the union peacefully. Secession is explicitly prohibited by our constitution and therefore the federal govt had to act. If a state tries to secede, it is an act of war.
Click to expand...

Can you cite the specific prohibition in the Constitution? Just curious
 
snilloctjc said:
Can you cite the specific prohibition in the Constitution? Just curious
Click to expand...

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; ”

Secession is clearly a violation of the commerce clause. None of the southern states can refuse to let congress regulate commerce. That is essentially what they did when the seceded.
 
rocket88 said:
OK, that covers the original 13. AT which point in its history was Arkansas an independent nation that freely joined the Union? Most, if not all of it, was part of Louisiana Territory, which passed from French possession to the US. It was French territory, then American -- never independent.

So how did Arkansas freely join the federation? For that matter, what about Iowa, North Dakota or Wyoming?
Click to expand...

Ever hear of territories and statehood conventions?
 
99percenter said:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; ”

Secession is clearly a violation of the commerce clause. None of the southern states can refuse to let congress regulate commerce. That is essentially what they did when the seceded.
Click to expand...

That seems like a stretch to me. Why is secession it a clear violation of this clause? How is regulating commerce "among the several States" a prohibition on secession? The term commerce was clearly defined both in the minds of the framers and today. No definition I am aware of relates commerce to a requirement to remain state.
 
theplaydrive said:
I have a friend that directly contradicts this "all Southern people have the same culture" nonsense.
Click to expand...

Then he's not really your friend. He's also not really Southern. I know people who are Southern born and bred who don't like or identify with parts of Southern culture or perhaps any of it. However, they do recognize the fact that it exists. If you are born into it you can't deny it. So your "friend" is lying to you just to shut you the hell up, which I could understand, or he/she isn't actually Southern. In either case, you can't criticize what you don't understand. We fully realize that some people are foolish enough to do it anyway. That'd be you.


I haven't decided to drag anything on.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have.
 
snilloctjc said:
That seems like a stretch to me. Why is secession it a clear violation of this clause? How is regulating commerce "among the several States" a prohibition on secession? The term commerce was clearly defined both in the minds of the framers and today. No definition I am aware of relates commerce to a requirement to remain state.
Click to expand...

Well. It is clearly unconstitutional. That's why a state has never managed to secede. How many states have been successful in leaving the union?
 
99percenter said:
Well. It is clearly unconstitutional. That's why a state has never managed to secede. How many states have been successful in leaving the union?
Click to expand...

I don't know of any that have tried since the Civil War, nor has any presented the case to the Supreme Court. There is nothing specific within the US Constitution that specifically rules leaving the Union as not an option. If anything the Constitution goes to great lengths to define the respective rights and powers of the individual States and the Federal Government (notice it is not the National Government). I would just speculate that if anything secession would be legally possible - though not easily accomplished - at a minimum for any of the original 13 states as they entered the Union from a state of individual independence, and I would include California and Texas as they two were independent political entities. The remaining states were effectively federal property at their origins and formed into states AFTER being part of the Union as territories, so their means and manner of entry proceeded from federal control to membership as states.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Then he's not really your friend. He's also not really Southern. I know people who are Southern born and bred who don't like or identify with parts of Southern culture or perhaps any of it. However, they do recognize the fact that it exists. If you are born into it you can't deny it. So your "friend" is lying to you just to shut you the hell up, which I could understand, or he/she isn't actually Southern. In either case, you can't criticize what you don't understand. We fully realize that some people are foolish enough to do it anyway. That'd be you.

Yes, you have.
Click to expand...
If only any of this were true.
 
Paschendale said:
The supreme court ruled that states cannot secede in Texas v. White in 1869.
Click to expand...

..........................and again................


Of course this ruling was going to be made POST Civil War!!!
 
Paschendale said:
The supreme court ruled that states cannot secede in Texas v. White in 1869.
Click to expand...

Already dealt with and done with I would think. If you don't think so, try to defend it.
 
Paschendale said:
The supreme court ruled that states cannot secede in Texas v. White in 1869.
Click to expand...

Thank you now that is the kind of factual reply I like. The ruling says a state cannot unilaterally seceed, wonder if that leaves the door open for a petition by any number of states to request secession?
 
snilloctjc said:
Thank you now that is the kind of factual reply I like. The ruling says a state cannot unilaterally seceed, wonder if that leaves the door open for a petition by any number of states to request secession?
Click to expand...
If you're asking whether or not states can come together and secede, I would imagine not because of the Contract Clause in Article I of the Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

In other words, if states petition together, it could be argued that they are petitioning as a confederation and their petition is therefore unconstitutional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom