• 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:
It would be even better if people would educate themselves on what flag they're actually talking about. Obviously, some folks are so ignorant of the subject that they don't even know what the, "Stars and Bars", is.

And, again, I would love to know how many Episcopals we have, here and how many are Libbos.
Click to expand...

I know what the Stars and Bars is. It's the original confederate flag. Doesn't always generate the same reaction as the Battle Flag, but IMO its meaning is the same.

Thunder said:
No foreign nation officially recognized the Confederate States of America as an independent country

Confederate States of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I guess we solved that one.
Click to expand...

You confused them with the facts. For shame!
 
LaMidRighter said:
Keep repeating that, it may come true. It probably won't, but it just might if you really really believe it in your heart.
Click to expand...

What the hell...

At the rate we're going, Santa Claus is gonna be the start of the Civil War. See? He came from the NORTH Pole!
 
Thunder said:
American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina



...see, we have evidence. Do you??
Click to expand...
I guess you aren't understanding, the north was tresspassing on southern land and refused an order to remove their presence. That is an act of war, but go ahead and use Wiki all you like.
 
Thunder said:
I am not bigoted against poor whites. My family was lower-middle class for the longest time.

However, I am against white racists. And yes, I call them hicks, hillbillies, white-trash, and other derogatory names. But this is due to their beliefs, not who they are.
Click to expand...

Is it ok to call racist blacks, "nigger"? By your logic, it is.
 
Phys251 said:
What the hell...

At the rate we're going, Santa Claus is gonna be the start of the Civil War. See? He came from the NORTH Pole!
Click to expand...
It's been well explained how the north started the war, and it's been thouroughly explained why the south seceeded and where the right was found. And the answer never changed from the people looking at things objectively. The "north only" side has been constantly changing the message. So, maybe ask them these things huh?
 
LaMidRighter said:
I guess you aren't understanding, the north was tresspassing on southern land and refused an order to remove their presence. That is an act of war, but go ahead and use Wiki all you like.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't respect property rights, which was one of the issues that started the Civil War, right?

Ft. Sumter was Federal property. Unilateral declarations of independence doesn't change that fact.

The South attacked Federal property, unprovoked. They started the hostilities of the American Civil War....a war fought to preserve the right to own other human beings.
 
apdst said:
Is it ok to call racist blacks, "nigger"? By your logic, it is.
Click to expand...

do you call black racists, "niggers"???

that's pretty horrible, if you ask me. I would never call a black person that word, no matter how evil they were.
 
Phys251 said:
What the hell...

At the rate we're going, Santa Claus is gonna be the start of the Civil War. See? He came from the NORTH Pole!
Click to expand...

hmm... I wonder what Santa is...

he give away free stuff like no tomorrow... which makes him a Yankee .
but the stuff he gives away is built by his own personal slave army... which makes him a confederate.

i'll have to do more research on this rascal Santa guy.
 
Phys251 said:
I know what the Stars and Bars is. It's the original confederate flag. Doesn't always generate the same reaction as the Battle Flag, but IMO its meaning is the same.



You confused them with the facts. For shame!
Click to expand...

You called the Battle Flag the, "Stars and Bars". So, obviously, you didn't know the difference until you decided to do a little research.
 
Thunder said:
do you call black racists, "niggers"???

that's pretty horrible, if you ask me. I would never call a black person that word, no matter how evil they were.
Click to expand...

It's no different than calling a white person a redneck. Both are derogatory terms.
 
apdst said:
It's no different than calling a white person a redneck. Both are derogatory terms.
Click to expand...

right. redneck, hick, hillbilly....and "nigger"...all hold the same weight.

man, I've never read such ignorant dishonesty in one day.
 
The bottom line is this; we can go on and on and on with Thunder, Haymarket, and the 99% guy, following their "gut" feelings, implications, intuition (or lack thereof), ability (or lack thereof) to read the minds of Lincoln, the Founders, or of Confederate leaders............but this is obviously going nowhere. One side here has an obvious aversion for documented historical fact and has failed to answer two important questions in this thread with any substantiated, and documented, historic evidence of their own and has dodged one important question which requires no evidence - only honesty. Failure to answer these three questions has shown only that your side lacks two very important chacteristics in reviewing history.............honesty and evidence.

So, here go the three questions once more (and remember #1 and #2 require some substantiated evidence while # 3 requires only your honesty):
(1) It was stated y more than one poster here that the US COnstitution prohibits secession. Where does the constitution EXPRESSLY prohibit this act? (No implications or fuzzy ancillary court opinions from 16 years after the fact) where IN THE DOCUMENT does it say this expressly?

(2) The OP suggests that display of the Confederate flag is a symbol of treason, and many posters in this thread seem to agree (based on all the South-bashing, and frequent use of words like hick, redneck, moron, and racist). So if the CSA was guilty of treason, WHY did NOT ONE SINGLE Confederate stand trial for treason? Especially after President Andrew Johnson and Chief Justice Chase openly expressed that it was their desire to see Davis tried and cnvicted as a traitor?

(3) Since the Stars and Stripes flew proudly over the instituion of slavery for over 80 years before the Confederacy, why shouldn't we ban the display of it as well? Please give some rationale to go along with your opinion here.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
I guess you don't respect property rights, which was one of the issues that started the Civil War, right?

Ft. Sumter was Federal property.
Click to expand...
I respect them, I also understand them. The fort ceased to be under any federal jurisdiction the minute the treaty between the states ended. What part of that is difficult?
Unilateral declarations of independence doesn't change that fact.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the founding fathers. Considering that was exactly how the country was formed to begin with.
The South attacked Federal property, unprovoked. They started the hostilities of the American Civil War....a war fought to preserve the right to own other human beings.
Click to expand...
Remaining after forbidden is a provocation. And repeating incorrect does not change incorrect.
 
Thunder said:
do you call black racists, "niggers"???

that's pretty horrible, if you ask me. I would never call a black person that word, no matter how evil they were.
Click to expand...

I see you decided not to answer the question...imagine that


no, i don't call anyone a nigger.. or a redneck, or a hick, or a hillbilly.... primarily because i'm not a bigot, nor a hypocrite.


we obviously know that you call white racists ( at least those who you deem to be racists) some nice epithets... but what do you call black racists?.... i'm guessing a few things here, 1, that you don't call them anything, as is par for the course among progressives... and, 2, if it comes to calling them anything, it's simply "racist".
am i close?
 
LaMidRighter said:
It's been well explained how the north started the war, and it's been thouroughly explained why the south seceeded and where the right was found. And the answer never changed from the people looking at things objectively. The "north only" side has been constantly changing the message. So, maybe ask them these things huh?
Click to expand...

Cut the revisionist bullcrap. The South fired on Fort Sumter. Period. The South started the war.

Thrilla said:
hmm... I wonder what Santa is...

he give away free stuff like no tomorrow... which makes him a Yankee .
but the stuff he gives away is built by his own personal slave army... which makes him a confederate.

i'll have to do more research on this rascal Santa guy.
Click to expand...

:D

apdst said:
You called the Battle Flag the, "Stars and Bars". So, obviously, you didn't know the difference until you decided to do a little research.
Click to expand...

Nice flame. Do you actually have anything of substance to add?
 
Thunder said:
right. redneck, hick, hillbilly....and "nigger"...all hold the same weight.

man, I've never read such ignorant dishonesty in one day.
Click to expand...

well, I think nigger is a bit worse ... but where me and you split ways is that I don't feel any of the terms are appropriate and you obviously do.

it's fine to hold that opinion, just don't ever preach about bigotry or racism again... not until you rid yourself of your own... it's the easiest thing in the world not to be a bigot, you just put it down and don't pick it up again.
 
Thrilla said:
... it's fine to hold that opinion, just don't ever preach about bigotry or racism again... not until you rid yourself of your own... it's the easiest thing in the world not to be a bigot, you just put it down and don't pick it up again.
Click to expand...

one can be a bigot, against racism & prejudice???

:lamo
 
Phys251 said:
Cut the revisionist bullcrap. The South fired on Fort Sumter. Period. The South started the war.



:D



Nice flame. Do you actually have anything of substance to add?
Click to expand...
Actually, the north is the revisionist side here. I'll give the simplest analogy I can since people either couldn't or wouldn't understand the Gitmo, or China analogies that myself and other posters presented.

If I allow you to stay on my property while we have an agreement and you put up a house, it is still on my property. Let's say we have irreconcilable differences and I void the agreement, I may make you an offer to reimburse you for the house but you must vacate the property and move all belongings you want to keep, regardless of what you feel is yours you do not own anything within the borders. If you then refuse to leave I then give a stern warning that I do not want you on the premises but you persist, and then you get the authorities on your side whether or not the law states you have any rights or claims to my property. Well, the next step is to put bullets into anything that becomes a problem.

For the purposes of the analogy you doesn't mean any particular poster or other human being, it's just to personalize so that maybe people will understand.
 
Its very simple: The South unilaterally seceded. The rest of the USA did not agree to this secession.

The USA had a fort in South Carolina. It was Federal property, filled with Federal troops.

The South, having unilaterally seceded, decided to piss on the property rights of the United States, and demanded that Ft. Sumter evacuate. Of course, the USA told Dixie to **** off, as it was their property, and the CSA had no right to demand the fort be evacuated. So, unprovoked, the South attacked Ft. Sumter.

In summation, the South seceded from the North to protect their property rights, but attacked Ft. Sumter cause they didn't give a **** about the property rights of others.
 
Thunder said:
Its very simple: The South unilaterally seceded. The rest of the USA did not agree to this secession.
Click to expand...
Which completely didn't ****ing matter. Considering that an agreement has two sides and either one can end it.

The USA had a fort in South Carolina. It was Federal property, filled with Federal troops.
Click to expand...
Wah Wah,.Wah Wah Wah Wah.
The South, having unilaterally seceded, decided to piss on the property rights of the United States, and demanded that Ft. Sumter evacuate. Of course, the USA told Dixie to **** off, as it was their property, and the CSA had no right to demand the fort be evacuated. So, unprovoked, the South attacked Ft. Sumter.
Click to expand...
Wah Wah. Wah Wah Wah Wah.
In summation, the South seceded from the North to protect their property rights, but attacked Ft. Sumter cause they didn't give a **** about the property rights of others.
Click to expand...
You lose.
 
Thunder said:
is this your response?

I guess this means my argument is correct, if this is all you have to say.
Click to expand...
Actually it just means you keep repeating incorrect and it's boring me. Thanks for playing.
 
99percenter said:
That's the thing though. The US was not a confederacy like EU which states were independent. In any dispute the federal govt is the final authority as was in the secession dispute. The federal govt said that pursuant to the Constitution secession was illegal and therefore the confederacy never existed.
Click to expand...

The united states are a federation of sovereign, independent nation-states. They created the federation. I know of at least three of the states that, when ratifying the constitution, specifically stated that they were conditionally delegating some authority to the federation, and that they would revoke those powers if and when belonging to the federation was detrimental to their liberty.

None of you has shown any evidence that the states chose to permanently give up their sovereignty upon joining the federation.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I guess you aren't understanding, the north was tresspassing on southern land and refused an order to remove their presence. That is an act of war, but go ahead and use Wiki all you like.
Click to expand...

Actually you are wrong. There was no such thing as southern land. United States had authority over all the United States including the south. The United States would have to approve withdrawal from tue union. Secession is explicitly prohibited by our constitution and therefore the CSA never existed. The South was occupying federal property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom