• 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!

West Point moves to vanquish Confederate symbols from campus

anatta said:
You honor the men, not the cause
Click to expand...
You want to honor those who committed treason against the United States? Article III, Sec 3 of the constitution defines treason as:" "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." That's exactly what they did and shouldn't be honored for committing that treason.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No, it was not. Slavery still existed in most of Latin America and forms of serfdom worse than slavery existed in the Russian empire, not to mention slavery was a regular practice in the Muslim world.

The constitution doesn’t prohibit that

Among other things.
Click to expand...

Slavery was prohibited across most of Latin America by 1850, so that is clearly untrue.

And no, serfdom was not worse than slavery. It wasn’t even close to being good, but serfs had substantially more rights than slaves did.

Wailing “but Muslims” is not an excuse for the CSA, sorry.

Slavery was the explicit reason the CSA went to war. No amount of squirming can change that.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Slavery was prohibited across most of Latin America by 1850, so that is clearly untrue.
Click to expand...
No it wasn’t. It remained legal in Brazil, Cuba, and Santo Domingo Which represented at the time, the most powerful elements of Latin America. Slavery was also practiced in Peru, despite being officially illegal.
Tigerace117 said:
And no, serfdom was not worse than slavery. It wasn’t even close to being good, but serfs had substantially more rights than slaves did.

Wailing “but Muslims” is not an excuse for the CSA, sorry.

Slavery was the explicit reason the CSA went to war. No amount of squirming can change that.
Click to expand...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why can't you see I am defending the truth. The truth is neutral, not good or bad. Facts are facts.

Why are leftists to blind to such such facts?
Click to expand...

The truth is that nowhere in the Constitution is there anything stating that slavery was to be protected or that opposing it is prohibited.

Facts are facts.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Slavery was prohibited across most of Latin America by 1850, so that is clearly untrue.

And no, serfdom was not worse than slavery. It wasn’t even close to being good, but serfs had substantially more rights than slaves did.

Wailing “but Muslims” is not an excuse for the CSA, sorry.

Slavery was the explicit reason the CSA went to war. No amount of squirming can change that.
Click to expand...

Shoot, serfs had more rights than many American workers do today.
 
Ouroboros said:
Show where the Constitution says that states do not have the right to secede, whatever the motive might be.

Lincoln pulled the Union's perpetuity out of his ass.
Click to expand...
2022 is a bit too late to re-litigate the legality of the confederate states seceding. But that isn't what this thread is about. It's about West Point's action to remove Confederate symbols, which I agree. Rebel symbols, from people waging war against the U.S. should not be allowed.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No it wasn’t. It remained legal in Brazil, Cuba, and Santo Domingo Which represented at the time, the most powerful elements of Latin America. Slavery was also practiced in Peru, despite being officially illegal.
Click to expand...

That’s not “most of Latin America” or even close to it. And seeing as Cuba was under Spanish colonial domination that hardly counts.

And if we are going off “power”.....the most powerful nations in the world had long since banned slavery.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The truth is that nowhere in the Constitution is there anything stating that slavery was to be protected or that opposing it is prohibited.

Facts are facts.
Click to expand...
That's actually not true. The original Constitution clearly mentions that people not free account for 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes. Slavery was state matter before the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.
 
Tigerace117 said:
That’s not “most of Latin America” or even close to it. And seeing as Cuba was under Spanish colonial domination that hardly counts.
Click to expand...
Cuba was part of the Spanish empire, they were not under Spanish domination. They were Spaniards. Fact, most of the Cuban Elaine, on the island wanted to secede from Spain for the same reasons as the Confederates.
Tigerace117 said:
And if we are going off “power”.....the most powerful nations in the world had long since banned slavery.
Click to expand...
Slavery hadn’t even been illegal for an entire generation in the British empire at this point.
 
MTAtech said:
2022 is a bit too late to re-litigate the legality of the confederate states seceding. But that isn't what this thread is about. It's about West Point's action to remove Confederate symbols, which I agree. Rebel symbols, from people waging war against the U.S. should not be allowed.
Click to expand...
a portrait is not a "symbol", especially since Lee has ties there
 
MTAtech said:
That's actually not true. The original Constitution clearly mentions that people not free account for 3/5 of a person for apportionment purposes. Slavery was state matter before the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.
Click to expand...

That’s not protection of slavery though. Or anything close.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Yes, it is. It’s literally waging war on the United States.
Click to expand...
They didn’t owe the US allegiance as they had seceded and therefore it wasn’t treason
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No, it was not. Slavery still existed in most of Latin America and forms of serfdom worse than slavery existed in the Russian empire, not to mention slavery was a regular practice in the Muslim world.

The constitution doesn’t prohibit that

Among other things.
Click to expand...
So because it was legal elsewhere it should have remained legal in the US?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Cuba was part of the Spanish empire, they were not under Spanish domination. They were Spaniards. Fact, most of the Cuban Elaine, on the island wanted to secede from Spain for the same reasons as the Confederates.

Slavery hadn’t even been illegal for an entire generation in the British empire at this point.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were under the domination of a foreign colonial power. Thanks for proving me right.

Actually, the Cuban nationalist movement was born out of dissatisfaction with Spanish corruption, high taxes, and lack of political representation. That was what spawned the Ten Years War. Arguing that the Cubans wanted to gain independence to protect slavery is comically false.

Utterly irrelevant to the fact that it WAS illegal.
 
Irredentist said:
Slavery was only protected in the same sense that all other types of private property were protected.
Click to expand...

The posters in question are trying to argue that slavery was okay because it was legal under the Constitution, and that opposing it was somehow a “constitutional violation”.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
They didn’t owe the US allegiance as they had seceded and therefore it wasn’t treason
Click to expand...

Yes, they did, as Americans in the first place.

They chose to wage war against the United States to protect slavery. Textbook treason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom