Quote:
Originally Posted by Low C Sharp
Sure, they saw themselves that way. But the reason the government didn't represent their interests was because they lost in a free election, not because they were denied the opportunity to voice and vote their own interests. They just got outvoted. Deciding that the president of your democracy isn't actually your leader because he wasn't the one you chose is worlds away from being denied a vote in the first place, as the colonists were.
|
It's just plain oversimplification to say that succession was about losing in a free election. The election of Lincoln was the straw that broke the camel's back (because of the implications of that election), but problems between the North and South had been brewing for years if not decades.
I stand by what I said earlier -- "there's a little irony in condemning the Confederacy for treason against a country itself born in treason." There are many things that the Confederacy can be condemned for, and treason may indeed be one of them, but simply dismissing those who supported the Confederacy as traitors against the United States (which is what I was responding to in my earlier post) fails to honestly deal with the complex mess that history can be.
I also frankly find it a bit odd and illogical to suggest that rejecting a monarchy in favor of a democracy is essentially justifiable treason while rejecting one democracy for another is essentially unjustifiable treason. They are both treason driven by a desire for self-determination.