How should Pro-Confederates be viewed?

[The Last Conformist]

Thorgrimm: I'm not 100% clear how secession necessarily involves "levying war" on the Union. If the North had said "fine, we'll do better without you" and let the CSA go without a shot fired, would the secession still technically have constituted "levying war"?

 

[Duddha]

Thorgrimm: I'm not 100% clear how secession necessarily involves "levying war" on the Union. If the North had said "fine, we'll do better without you" and let the CSA go without a shot fired, would the secession still technically have constituted "levying war"?

exactly, the way Linclon justified the war was by getting the South to fire the first shot, and later once the momentum had run out on that rational, the ending of slavery.

 

[Thorgrimm]

The Last Conformist, that is a good question. When a state votes for inclusion into the Union it is understood that trying to secede would in essence be breaking the Union, aka detrimental to the Union as a whole. Hence the Levying war against the Union. Also the enemies of the US would be the only ones to benefit from the breakup of the US.

Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[Thorgrimm]

Duddha, where did you go to school at? Is this the example of the level of education in California? Lincoln did NOT force the southerners to fire the first shot! PGT Beuregard fired the first shots in that insurrection. He was not "forced" by Lincoln to fire. You need to do more reading before making silly comments like that.

Thorgrimm

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by Lord Draegon
Hey I wouldnt have any of those opinions in the poll. They are not traters, I am not a confederate, nor do I beleive they should break away. I think they are just people with different views from me.

By Confederate I mean pro-Secession Southerner, as they probably wouldn't refer to themselves as Americans.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
A US Civil War II would be great viewing on BBC News 24...

But whose side would Fox or CNN take?

FOX would go against whichever side San Francisco is on and CNN would cover it with nuetrality. I'm assuming that SF would not side with the Confederates . And Al-Jazeera would of course take the Confederates side, stating that they would be fighting against the American infidel's Imperialism. Wonder what side W would take, since he would want to keep the power he has in the USA, but at the same time, most of the USA's domestic oil is in the South .

 

[WillJ]

There seems to be a little misunderstanding as to the concept of traitors. The definition of "traitor," from dictionary.com:

One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason

Note that there's nothing in there that says traitors have to be "bad," or that you have to disagree with them for them to be traitors. And if succeeding from a country (against its will, which would almost certainly be the case) isn't betraying it, I don't know what is. There is NO WAY you can say that Confederates, pro-independent-Californians, Texan successionists, or anything similar aren't traitors. That is, unless of course they can get the rest of the Union to agree with them and "let go" of them, but I seriously doubt that's going to happen.

The only subjective question at hand is whether or not this particular case of treason is justified. And I know of no justification for the South succeeding from the Union, at least at this current moment in time.

[Note: The dictionary.com definition is of course not "official," but it makes sense to me, and I wouldn't think anyone would disagree with it. Please tell us if you do.]

 

[The Last Conformist]

By betraying one's country, I would understand actively helping external enemies. While a case certainly could be made that secession is treason, it's not within I'd automatically think of as treason.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by Thorgrimm
By definition secession IS insurrection, and whoever trys it will get stomped. Just like the first try at that stupid notion. So yes they are Traitors.

Well would you argue that the American Revolution was largely carried out by traitors from Great Britain? What about the Kurds in Turkey? Say a secession movement is illegal in an oppressive society would you consider them traitors to that society? I am not saying that the CSA was justified in secession nor am I saying they were not partly or largely responsible for starting the Civil War. Both sides contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War (even if it can be said the South contributed more so to it).

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
By betraying one's country, I would understand actively helping external enemies. While a case certainly could be made that secession is treason, it's not within I'd automatically think of as treason.

Treason as I see it is a break of the trust between a country and one or more of its members. Breaking away from a country and forming your own against your mother country's will is certainly breaking that trust; after all, for example, Washington trusts each and every state to remain part of the country and abide by the Constitution.

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
Well would you argue that the American Revolution was largely carried out by traitors from Great Britain? What about the Kurds in Turkey? Say a secession movement is illegal in an oppressive society would you consider them traitors to that society? I am not saying that the CSA was justified in secession nor am I saying they were not partly or largely responsible for starting the Civil War. Both sides contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War (even if it can be said the South contributed more so to it).

Yes, all the examples you listed were traitors.

 

[Sims2789]

Traitors are not necessarily bad. However, the pro-Secessionists in the South are.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise


Well would you argue that the American Revolution was largely carried out by traitors from Great Britain?
What about the Kurds in Turkey?
Say a secession movement is illegal in an oppressive society would you consider them traitors to that society?

To answer your points:

1. Yes, we were traitors to our leader at the time (the King of England). To be honest, we didn't really have a legit reason to break away.
2 & 3. Yes, they are traitors also.

The term "traitor" does not denote "badness".

 

[andrewgprv]

Let them leave if that's what they want.

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by Duddha

and later once the momentum had run out on that rational, the ending of slavery.

Not so, since that was such a controversial issue that certainly didn't help the effort. It did however keep Britain out of the war, which hurt the Confederates a lot.

 

[Speedo]

Originally posted by Duddha
exactly, the way Linclon justified the war was by getting the South to fire the first shot, and later once the momentum had run out on that rational, the ending of slavery.

No. Lincoln did nothing to make the south fire the first shot. Beauregard took care of that. The starting rationale was preservation of the union. It was 100% valid throughout the war, but Lincoln realized that the war needed a tighter focus which would not only overjoy the abolitionist republicans and energize the soldiers behind a "cause for humanity," but help keep England from recognizing the confederacy or joining the war.

 

[Sims2789]

^Yes, Lincoln was very smart but he probably broke more laws then any other presdient in history. For example, he had one congressman imprisoned for speaking out against him.

 

[Ozz]

Through a high powered sniper scope.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Any democratic country which denies independance to a region in which there is a democratic majority in favour of independance, is in doing so renouncing its democracy. To define seperatism as treason is absurd. For one, simply holding and expressing such an opinion is covered by freedom of speech. Acting to effect succession without there being a democratic majority in favour in the affected region would clearly be a crime against everyone concerned, call it treason if it pleases you. But doing so when a democratic majority does exist is not only legitimate but required in any sane democracy.

I can't say as I would be happy at Scotland becoming independant, but I have absolutely no right to influence the decision, as I'm not Scottish.

As for Confederates, the same rules apply, if they want independance they must acheive a democratic majority in the region that they want to succeed. The North has no say in the matter. I can't honestly imagine why they would choose to associate their cause with a flag that means slavery and racism to so many people though.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Enkidu Warrior
Any democratic country which denies independance to a region in which there is a democratic majority in favour of independance, is in doing so renouncing its democracy. To define seperatism as treason is absurd. For one, simply holding and expressing such an opinion is covered by freedom of speech. Acting to effect succession without there being a democratic majority in favour in the affected region would clearly be a crime against everyone concerned, call it treason if it pleases you. But doing so when a democratic majority does exist is not only legitimate but required in any sane democracy.

I can't say as I would be happy at Scotland becoming independant, but I have absolutely no right to influence the decision, as I'm not Scottish.

But where do you draw the "group" line? What if the lowands
majority doesn't want to split. what if a border county
majority doesn't want to split. what if a border village majority
doesn't want to split. As a "group" they have the same rights.

And if they do split, what are they splitting for? the right to make
war, and right to horde a new economic bonanaz?

It's just stupidity and greed in action, we should be joining together to make a better civilization, not makin' the same
19th century mistakes over and over again.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Originally posted by Ozz


But where do you draw the "group" line? What if the lowands
majority doesn't want to split. what if a border county
majority doesn't want to split. what if a border village majority
doesn't want to split. As a "group" they have the same rights.

And if they do split, what are they splitting for? the right to make
war, and right to horde a new economic bonanaz?

It's just stupidity and greed in action, we should be joining together to make a better civilization, not makin' the same
19th century mistakes over and over again.

I'm glad you brought that up, since this is where my democracy argument seems to break up. Clearly under my argument a family could declare there own independant country ("Petoria" say) since a democratic majority would exist within their household. This is clearly not sensible, a line has to be drawn, and I sure as hell don't know where that should be. What I would say however, is that an external population denying independance to a region that demands it is equally absurd within a democracy.

I completely agree that unity will advance soceity, and I'm not particularly supporting any seperatist movement, but I don't have the right to decide, only the people in the region concerned do. My experience of this issue is in relation to Scottish independance, and like I said I wouldn't like to see them seperate from the UK, but it has nothing to do with me. To suppose I have the right to decide for them on this issue would be the height of arrogance. It's no different than supposing that I have the right to interfere in the democratic process of a foreign country.

 

[Shadylookin]

Originally posted by Enkidu Warrior
Any democratic country which denies independance to a region in which there is a democratic majority in favour of independance, is in doing so renouncing its democracy. To define seperatism as treason is absurd. For one, simply holding and expressing such an opinion is covered by freedom of speech. Acting to effect succession without there being a democratic majority in favour in the affected region would clearly be a crime against everyone concerned, call it treason if it pleases you. But doing so when a democratic majority does exist is not only legitimate but required in any sane democracy.

I can't say as I would be happy at Scotland becoming independant, but I have absolutely no right to influence the decision, as I'm not Scottish.

As for Confederates, the same rules apply, if they want independance they must acheive a democratic majority in the region that they want to succeed. The North has no say in the matter. I can't honestly imagine why they would choose to associate their cause with a flag that means slavery and racism to so many people though.

the US isn't a democracy. besides one must establish certain rules like unalienable rights and such if one wants to be in a free enviroment. I don't know who said it but it was good "democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" one of our rules has been no succession and if one wanted to succed the whole union should get to vote on it since it does indeed effect all of us greatly(we must be democratic don't we)

There seems to be a little misunderstanding as to the concept of traitors. The definition of "traitor," from dictionary.com:

one man's traitor is another's hero. in the end it's the history writers that decide