• 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.
apdst said:
Lincoln wasn't a Progressive! Stop with the lies! Please?

Teddy Roosevelt joined the Progressive Party after he was a member of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

By progessive i mean ideologically. Both those guys were very progressive for there time. The republican party freed the slaves and gave them citizenship and voting rights. Now its the republican party that talks about secession and taking away civil rights in the name of states rights.
 
Thunder said:
in 1863, Lincoln was a Progressive.
Click to expand...

I spewed beer all over my moniter on that one! You need to stop making me LOL at your nonsense.

What made Lincoln such a progressive in 1863?
 
Thunder said:
err...its a lie. there was not a referendum in all states of the CSA.

a minority of CSA states had such a referendum on secession.
Click to expand...

And, the states that didn't have a referndum, held special elections to vote in a secession committee. Who do you think voted for those committees?

Use whatever semantics you choose, but the people of each state had a say in secession.

While we're at it, admit that you didn't know any of that, before I posted it.
 
99percenter said:
By progessive i mean ideologically. Both those guys were very progressive for there time. The republican party freed the slaves and gave them citizenship and voting rights. Now its the republican party that talks about secession and taking away civil rights in the name of states rights.
Click to expand...

No, what you mean is coincidentally.

You dig what they did, so boom! they're magically a, "progressive".

Margaret Sanger was a progressive. He gave us the Negro Project, which purported the genocide of blacks. FDR was a progressive, who gave us the American concentration camps. Jim Jones was a progressive and he gave us Jonestown.

No, in reality, the history of the political Left Wing is so terrible and embarrassing, that ya'll try to latch onto anything that will shine a better light on it.
 
Caine said:
Yes.

There is a difference between being a racist, and not agreeing that we should have slaves.

The issues aren't mutually exclusive..... :roll:

Such simplistic views of the Civil War are so pathetic.
Click to expand...

So is every single person who has lived during times when women were discriminated against (including today) sexist? Because if everyone who lived during the 1850s was a racist, then this same standard should apply.
 
Paschendale said:
So is every single person who has lived during times when women were discriminated against (including today) sexist? Because if everyone who lived during the 1850s was a racist, then this same standard should apply.
Click to expand...

So thats the skrawman you are going to build... okay..

Lets get back to real debate then.... .

What, specifically, was racist about the CSA that the USA was fighting?

Slavery can't be an answer because slavery and racism are not mutually exclusive as it pertains to this particular era in history.

Or are you another person who cannot view this time period in a historical perspective, deciding instead to apply modern social views to a time period 150 years ago?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Ah, but the Confederacy didn't immediately leave, they had fought since the early 1800's for the Union to uphold it's constitutional duties in protecting equal trade amongst the states and fair application of tax law and other protections as part of the compact. The last option was to leave which the CSA did with heavy hearts. It's not as if the south just on a whim said "**** it, I'm done" there were detailed abuses from many decades prior. I'm also not saying the civil rights movement was exactly similar to the secession movement but some basic common values were shared.
Click to expand...
And while those who eventually formed the Confederacy remained in the Union, the comparison to MLK, the Tea Party and any other similar people and organizations was an accurate one. The minute they decided to form a new nation, the comparison ceases to be accurate.

They left, MLK didn't. That's the difference. Again, if you don't acknowledge that difference, you don't acknowledge the arguments being made here.
 
theplaydrive said:
And while those who eventually formed the Confederacy remained in the Union, the comparison to MLK, the Tea Party and any other similar people and organizations was an accurate one. The minute they decided to form a new nation, the comparison ceases to be accurate.

They left, MLK didn't. That's the difference. Again, if you don't acknowledge that difference, you don't acknowledge the arguments being made here.
Click to expand...
MLK was starting to get traction with the Civil Rights movement, the TEA party has made some traction politically, and yet there are still groups to the extremes of the basic tenets of the ideology that do not claim the American heritage as readily as the former, such as the Black Panters, the Nation of Islam, Anarchists, some variatios of the libertarian movement etc.

The southern states tried decorum, tried to remind the northern states that we were founded on a constitution of limited federal powers. A singular constitution that disbars the federal government from engaging in favoritism against any one of or group of states for any reason. The northern response was further encroachment. What then is a society to do? I am serious about that question, if there was no traction gained within the Civil Rights Movement or other movements what do you think the next step would have been?

I will reiterate, while there are glaring differences between the movements there are core similarities that can easily be seen if you choose to look.
 
apdst said:
And, the states that didn't have a referndum, held special elections to vote in a secession committee. Who do you think voted for those committees?

Use whatever semantics you choose, but the people of each state had a say in secession....
Click to expand...

no, sorry. YOU said that ALL the states of the CSA has a state-wide referendum on seccession.

this is an outright lie. less than 50% of the CSA states had a referendum on seccession.

just admit that you were wrong.
 
Thunder said:
no, sorry. YOU said that ALL the states of the CSA has a state-wide referendum on seccession.

this is an outright lie. less than 50% of the CSA states had a referendum on seccession.

just admit that you were wrong.
Click to expand...

And where does splitting these hairs get you really?????

When you are reduced to splitting hairs in a debate, you've failed.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I will reiterate, while there are glaring differences between the movements there are core similarities that can easily be seen if you choose to look.
Click to expand...
I acknowledged those similarities in my post when I said, "And while those who eventually formed the Confederacy remained in the Union, the comparison to MLK, the Tea Party and any other similar people and organizations was an accurate one." I guess you ignored that and the rest of your post has nothing to do with my point. So since it's quite clear that you'd rather ignore what I've said than be honest, I'll make it simple.

Here is the original post we're talking about:
dumbasdirt said:
The way I see what you are saying is that anyone who fights against the American government is a traitor, so you think MLK was a traitor, the Black Panthers are traitors? In my opinion I think you don’t like the Confederate flag and you see what you want to see and the hell with everybody else.
Click to expand...

Nobody has argued that fighting against the American government is treason. We have argued that making war against the government and forming a new nation is treason. MLK and the Black Panthers did not do that. The Confederacy did. If you want to keep liking posts and making posts that distort our arguments, then by all means, continue your dishonesty, but know that I'll continue to call it out.
 
Caine said:
And where does splitting these hairs get you really?????

When you are reduced to splitting hairs in a debate, you've failed.
Click to expand...

when someone claims that ALL the states of the CSA had a referendum on secession, but in reality only three states did so, that is a big deal.....not splitting hairs.
 
FluffyNinja said:
It ceased to be Federal property when the state of South Carolina seceded. According to your assertions I suppose that the city of San Antonio and the Alamo are still legally the property of Mexico, right?
Click to expand...

The fort was federal property in the same way that if you buy a house that is your property. You're basically defending South Carolina's right to seize property that they want without any recompense to the owners. When somebody says they fired the first shots, the comeback is "We asked nicely first." Asked nicely to illegally seize property?
 
rocket88 said:
The fort was federal property in the same way that if you buy a house that is your property. You're basically defending South Carolina's right to seize property that they want without any recompense to the owners. When somebody says they fired the first shots, the comeback is "We asked nicely first." Asked nicely to illegally seize property?
Click to expand...

indeed, calling Ft. Sumter "illegally occupied Confederate property", just because the South unilaterally secceded, is justifying the theft of private property.
 
FluffyNinja said:
By the way, I'd like to appeal to your rational side for a moment here (if that side does indeed exist). Do you or any who share your position on this issue, actually, for one moment, believe that the Confederacy desired war with the Union? That this was their original intent? That they wanted to take on an opponent that was twice their size, had a population at least five times greater, was better equipped, had more railroads, more money,more resources, and a much larger manufacturing base? Before you answer, know that I can, and will provide direct (and verifiable) quotes from Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and any number of Southern Senators which will prove the contrary.
Click to expand...

I know what Jefferson Davis said. That guy was a bigger liar than Nixon. Truthfully, I don't trust what any politician says. Basically, no matter what Jeff Davis, Lee, or some random ex-Senator said, they were all playing the age old game of politicians covering their asses.

What did South Carolina think when they brought their cannons to within range of Ft. Sumter? It was a nice place to picnic?
 
Caine said:
And where does splitting these hairs get you really?????

When you are reduced to splitting hairs in a debate, you've failed.
Click to expand...

This absurd claim of his tory was made by apdst repeatedly. He stated that he would prove that all eleven Confederate states state wide referendums on secession plus an additional three border states also held them.

What I will do, however, prove that all 11 Confederate states and 3 border states had state wide referendums on secession.
Click to expand...

He ended up showing that only three did and in one of those three- Virginia - the results were so split that the state divided into two different pasts and the state of West Virginia was created.

This is far from splitting hairs. It is getting it right and exposing the extremist lies of the apologists defending secession, treason and slavery.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
I acknowledged those similarities in my post when I said, "And while those who eventually formed the Confederacy remained in the Union, the comparison to MLK, the Tea Party and any other similar people and organizations was an accurate one." I guess you ignored that and the rest of your post has nothing to do with my point. So since it's quite clear that you'd rather ignore what I've said than be honest, I'll make it simple.

Here is the original post we're talking about:


Nobody has argued that fighting against the American government is treason. We have argued that making war against the government and forming a new nation is treason. MLK and the Black Panthers did not do that. The Confederacy did. If you want to keep liking posts and making posts that distort our arguments, then by all means, continue your dishonesty, but know that I'll continue to call it out.
Click to expand...
And again, the south didn't fight at first. The south simply exited the union, the north decided to stay and occupy southern territory and then.....only then did the south fight.. Leaving isn't treason, not by any stretch of constitutional interpretation. I most certainly did answer your point.
 
rocket88 said:
I know what Jefferson Davis said. That guy was a bigger liar than Nixon. Truthfully, I don't trust what any politician says. Basically, no matter what Jeff Davis, Lee, or some random ex-Senator said, they were all playing the age old game of politicians covering their asses.

What did South Carolina think when they brought their cannons to within range of Ft. Sumter? It was a nice place to picnic?
Click to expand...
And what did the North think was going to happen when they maintained a fort on southern property?
 
LaMidRighter said:
And what did the North think was going to happen when they maintained a fort on southern property?
Click to expand...

perhaps they could have negotiated a peaceful turnover of the fort?

but they didn't have to, as the fort was Federal property. didn't the South fight the North over property rights????

interesting conundrum.
 
LaMidRighter said:
And again, the south didn't fight at first. The south simply exited the union, the north decided to stay and occupy southern territory and then.....only then did the south fight.. Leaving isn't treason, not by any stretch of constitutional interpretation. I most certainly did answer your point.
Click to expand...
And again, this is an argument that has absolutely nothing to do with the false nature of dumbasdirt's comment.

Nobody has argued that fighting against the American government is treason as he has said we have. You liked his post and you continue to defend his post as if it is correct. That is dishonest.
 
theplaydrive said:
And again, this is an argument that has absolutely nothing to do with the false nature of dumbasdirt's comment.

Nobody has argued that fighting against the American government is treason as he has said we have. You liked his post and you continue to defend his post as if it is correct. That is dishonest.
Click to expand...
Okay, then tell me what's wrong with it. I've given you my honest reasons.
 
Quick question, because this "state's rights vs slavery" thing is always fought over incessantly. Were the seceding states fighting to secure any rights other than the right to own other people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom