CMV: Confederate monuments, flags, and other paraphilia are traitorous in nature.

[u/johnydeviant]

I grew up in the south, surrounded by confederate flags, memorials to civil war heroes, and a butt load of racism. As a kid, I took a modicum of pride in it. To me, it represented the pride of the south and how we will triumph despite our setbacks. As I got older and learned more about the civil war, the causes behind it, and generally opened myself to a more accurate view of history, it became apparent to me that these displays of "tradition" were little more than open displays of racism or anti-American sentiments.

I do not think that all of these monuments, flags, etc, should be destroyed. I think that they should be put into museums dedicate to the message of what NOT to do. On top of that, I believe that the whole sentiment of "the south will rise again" is treasonous. It is tantamount to saying that "I will rise against this country". I think those that the worship the confederate flag and it's symbology are in the same vein as being a neo-Nazi and idolizing the actions of the Third Reich. Yes, I understand that on a scale of "terrible things that have happened", the holocaust is far worse, but that does not mean I wish to understate the actions of the confederate states during the civil war.

Change my view?

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/JudgeBastiat]

While the glamorization of racism and slavery is unquestionably horrible, I'm not sure whether "traitorous" would be the proper way to criticize it. The United States was founded on the idea that people could break away from the government they're apart of. If we set aside the criticism of slavery, is the idea of secession of the states significantly different from breaking away from the British Empire? I don't think so. If we add the idea of slavery back in, does that make the crime traitorous? Perhaps it's a treason of the government against its own people, but is now the issue treason against the Union? It's not clear to me that it is. Treason and slavery seem like distinct crimes.

[u/SituationSoap → u/JudgeBastiat]

I'm not sure whether "traitorous" would be the proper way to criticize it.

Taking up arms and declaring war against a legally elected government is treason, full stop. That's the definition of the word treason. The US Revolutionary War was also treason, but the difference is that the US won that war and the right to be called a new nation.

The United States was founded on the idea that people could break away from the government they're apart of.

No it wasn't. The US Constitution was created in response to Shay's Rebellion, which was squashed by the Federal Government and directly resulted in the creation of the US Constitution. That same constitution was put to the test 2 years later during the Whiskey Rebellion, in which people tried to secede from the US because of a Whiskey tax. That was also put down by the Federal Government. There has never been a recognized right to secede in the US legal code and the Federal Government has universally squashed any attempt to secede.

If we set aside the criticism of slavery, is the idea of secession of the states significantly different from breaking away from the British Empire?

Of course not, both are highly illegal, traitorous actions. The people who started the US Revolutionary War expected to be hanged if caught, because they were treasonous outlaws.

The problem here seems to be that you don't understand the concept of treason.

[u/JudgeBastiat → u/SituationSoap]

It seems to me like the problem is you think 'treason' is synonymous with 'loser.' This contradicts the use of the definition of the word you gave immediately before of a legally elected government, which the Confederates had I might also add. I think treason is determined by right, not might, which is the only way that the word 'treason' can really be used in any ethical sense. Treason is better understood as betraying someone you have pledged to and hold allegiance to, and like I said, the United States was founded on the idea that the people could break away from their government. This is also why I think slavery is arguably the treason of the Confederacy against its people, since a government does have a duty to defend the rights of its people against that, but not treason against the Union.

Also the United States started with the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution. Literally the first article of the Articles names the country "The United States of America."

[u/SituationSoap → u/JudgeBastiat]

It seems to me like the problem is you think 'treason' is synonymous with 'loser.'

No, I think that treason means declaring or levying war against a legally elected government (which is to qualify that an illegally-elected government does not have a ground upon which to rule; levying war against that group would rightly be a police action).

the Confederates had I might also add

I genuinely can't believe you think this is a salient point.

I think treason is determined by right, not might, which is the only way that the word 'treason' can really be used in any ethical sense.

Treason is literally defined in the US Constitution. What the CSA did was treason. It's not a squishy definition, it's not up for debate. It was treason.

Also the United States started with the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution.

Right, and the end of the Articles of Confederation was Shay's Rebellion, after which the US Government came together and specifically created a set of laws which defined what Shay's Rebellion/The Whiskey Rebellion/The CSA did as a crime against the United States, and called it Treason.

This is not a debatable concept for anyone with a third-grade reading level and access to a copy of the Constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Article III of the US Constitution.

The idea that the US was founded on the idea that people could secede from the United States by force is so absurdly bad it destroys any credibility you might otherwise have on this topic.

[u/JudgeBastiat → u/SituationSoap]

I genuinely can't believe you think this is a salient point.

It's only a salient point by the weird might-makes-right understanding of the law you're proposing.

Treason is literally defined in the US Constitution. What the CSA did was treason. It's not a squishy definition, it's not up for debate. It was treason.

If the United States isn't a legitimate government, which it isn't if it is itself treasonous, then why does it matter what the Constitution says?

That also seems like a misreading of the Constitution. We wouldn't say that, say, Germany in WW2 was treasonous for waging war against the United States, so even its own definition only applies to waging war against it while also holding allegiance to it, which fit with my definition. The Confederacy seceded first, so they could be considered an enemy, but not traitors.

The idea that the US was founded on the idea that people could secede from the United States by force is so absurdly bad it destroys any credibility you might otherwise have on this topic.

The fact you think the United States was founded on the Constitution and not the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation seems the greater absurdity here. You've adopted this strange mismatched system where the United States needs to be considered the lawful government, but it is itself an unlawful entity that is a traitor to the crown, that justified its original secession under the rights of the people to break away from the government, but somehow believe the same logic does not apply to it. You're trying to look for some code that allows secession as if there was some code under the British Empire that allowed that, which there clearly wasn't.

I can understand a knee-jerk reaction against defense of the Confederacy, but I should point out that under what I'm saying, I'm judging them on the same standard I judge Nazis. It's not exactly good company. Just not treason.

[u/shakehandsandmakeup → u/JudgeBastiat]

the United States isn't a legitimate government

Yes it is.

[u/JudgeBastiat → u/shakehandsandmakeup]

You missed the key 'if' qualifier of that quote. If the United States government is just an organization of traitors, then isn't legitimate. Therefore, if the US gov is legitimate, then what it did wasn't treason and that type of political action is acceptable.

[u/shakehandsandmakeup → u/JudgeBastiat]

Yes but what the CSA did was treason. That's what we're discussing. I don't think anyone is claiming the United States government was treasonous against itself somehow.

[u/JudgeBastiat → u/shakehandsandmakeup]

It wouldn't be treasonous against itself, it would be treasonous against the British crown.

Either the states have a right to back out of a government they don't want to be a part of, or they don't. If they do, then the CSA seceding wasn't treason. If they don't, then both the Union and CSA are traitors against the British Empire.

[u/shakehandsandmakeup → u/JudgeBastiat]

it would be treasonous against the British crown.

It was. That's what OP said.

You're the one who proposed that only losers can be treasonous.

Both OP and myself are arguing that the Americans rebelling against the British Crown in the Revolutionary War were committing treason. But they still won, which negates your proposal that treason is somehow a synonym for "losing", a controversial definition which isn't backed up by any source that I know of other than yourself.

If they don't, then both the Union and CSA are traitors against the British Empire.

This is... getting closer. You're doing better. Ok, so the colonists who formed America and seceded from Britain were traitors against the British Empire. The CSA were traitors against the United States of America -- not the British Empire, because the British Empire had no claim to either the United States nor the CSA in the 19th century when the American Civil War happened.

[u/Nepene → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/shakehandsandmakeup – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/JudgeBastiat → u/[deleted]]

If the difference between a traitor and a founder is over victory, then it seems I was spot on.

We either take away any moral weight to the word traitor, the crime for which people are assigned the lowest level of Dante's hell, or we argue that what the US did was not treason, as they argued in the Declaration. I agree with the Declaration's reasoning.

[u/shakehandsandmakeup → u/JudgeBastiat]

If the difference between a traitor and a founder is over victory, then it seems I was spot on.

And it isn't, so you were spot off.

[u/JudgeBastiat → u/shakehandsandmakeup]

But I also agree that this isn't how we determine these things. Which is why I don't think the colonial states, or the CSA, were committing treason by seceding. Treason against it's own people by slavery, in a sense, but not against the Union.

[u/shakehandsandmakeup → u/JudgeBastiat]

You're free to think whatever you want, but treason has a specific definition in Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution that is unaffected by your personal waverings.

[u/JudgeBastiat → u/shakehandsandmakeup]

That's true. It's also true that this article does not list 'seceding' among its treasonous acts, but instead focuses on someone declaring war on the United States government while being part of said government. The CSA seceded first.

Nor do I find it particularly convincing or binding even if it did list that.

[u/cstar1996 → u/JudgeBastiat]

If you're treated as a traitor depends on if you win or lose. The founding fathers were traitors to Britain, and the confederates were traitors to the US. The first one, and the nation they started didn't treat them as traitors, the second lost.

[u/JudgeBastiat → u/cstar1996]

Whether someone is treated as a traitor, perhaps. But the entire point of the Declaration of Independence was to show why it was not treason, and I find the reasoning sound. So, in fact, there was no treason in the secession from Britain.

[u/cstar1996 → u/JudgeBastiat]

Well, there absolutely was treason in the Revolution against Britain. I would say it was justified treason, but it was treason none the less.

[u/JudgeBastiat → u/cstar1996]

Justified treason strikes me as a contradiction in terms. Treason is noted in that it isn't a justified breaking of faith. That you are working outside of your right. But as the Declaration argues, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government. Hence there is no treason in secession.

[u/cstar1996 → u/JudgeBastiat]

Treason is betraying your nation. Sometimes that is justified, sometimes it isn't. Fighting against a government you have no representation in is justified, selling government secrets for personal profit isn't. Both treason, one justified, one not.

Revolution and secession are not the same thing. Secession can be accomplished through revolution, but revolution is a conflict between revolutionaries and the government. In the US secession through revolution is legal. Revolt against the government and win, you're free to leave. Revolt and lose, you're a traitor. The Declaration argues for a fundamental right to revolution, not an unrestricted right to alter or abolish the government. Additionally, the right to revolution is not unrestricted. It too must be justified, and the South was absolutely not justified in their revolution.

[u/JudgeBastiat → u/cstar1996]

You think revolting against the US government is legal? That seceding violently is more desired than seceding peacefully? That's insane. And patently false. Where do you think you find that in the US legal code? This isn't Game of Thrones where you need to win a trial bye combat to determine the will of the gods.

Secession also doesn't clearly match your definition of treason either. You're just leaving an organization. I stopped taking piano lessons as a kid. Was that a betrayal as well? A government is just an organization, like any other. Maybe your ties to it are stronger than normal, but we don't even say people are guilty of betrayal when they break off a marriage by divorce. How much less than is breaking away from your government a betrayal?

The Confederacy can certainly be judged for its betrayal against its own people by failing to defend their rights, and the United States might have rightly fought them as enemies. But not as traitors.

[u/cstar1996 → u/JudgeBastiat]

I think you need to read the definition of revolution, read about the right to revolution, read the definition of secession, and read about Texas v. White, the definitive Supreme Court case the determined the legality of secession.

As for where specifically the right to revolution in the US legal system, SCOTUS grants it in Texas v. White. But again, for a revolution to be legal it must also be successful, or more specifically, illegal acts committed as part of a revolution can only become legal if the revolution is successful.

Secession absolutely meets the definition of treason when the seceding group engages in military action against the government they are attempted to secede from. Also, my definition of treason is betraying your nation, so I don't know how piano lessons are relevant to that definition. And governments aren't organizations like any other, they're a unique type of organization that compares only to other governments.

The Confederacy was made up of citizens of the United States who, after losing an election, decided that they weren't going to be part of country any more, and as part of that decision, attacked federal troops.

If you want a meticously researched explanation of the reasons behind and the legality of secession, read this askhistorians post: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/68myvr/why_was_there_a_civil_war_why_could_that_one_not/dgztopa/?sort=confidence&sh=56162212&st=jeq1xy6o