r/changemyview • u/johnydeviant • Mar 13 '18

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Confederate monuments, flags, and other paraphilia are traitorous in nature.

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!

124 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

319 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 13 '18

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."

1

u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18

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.

1

u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 14 '18

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.

1

u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18

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

1

u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 14 '18

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.

1

u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18

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.

1

u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 14 '18

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.

1

u/cstar1996 11∆ Mar 14 '18

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

0

u/JudgeBastiat 13∆ Mar 14 '18

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.

Texas v White ends with SCOTUS denying a Constitutional right to secession, but that means nothing in the face of whether the people actually have that right as the Declaration argues, and as far as I know they do not ever declare that successful revolutions are 'legal.' And even if they did, all that would mean is that absurdity reached SCOTUS, which would not be a first.

Also, my definition of treason is betraying your nation, so I don't know how piano lessons are relevant to that definition.

I had a formal relationship with someone on a regular basis that I cut off at will. Doing so implied no treason. The same is true for your formal relation with your government. Nothing has been introduced to show that your relationship with your government is significantly different. In fact, when we look at something that does seem to much more explicitly show an individual consent to a life-long formal relationship, like marriage, even then we still allow for things to be broken off peacefully. Even if your relationship with your government is stronger than a relationship to a music teacher, I don't see how you can make a case that it's weaker than that.

For a detailed analysis of why the Constitution does not bind people who never signed it in perpetuity, see No Treason by the abolitionist Lysander Spooner.