The Confederate Flag

[PiKA2001]

^^^ I don't think he associated the Bonnie Blue flag with it flying over TX, more so commenting how TX used it as an inspiration when creating their state flag.

[Low C Sharp]

I know better, and I don't believe it represents the exact same thing. See above...the battle flag was used by the Klan and segregationists over the last 150 years to promote white supremacy and racial intimidation/violence. The Stars and Bars was not. Their shared Confederate history is only part of the story.

[DrPhil]

A country that was born in treason and ethnic cleansing.

All of that was deemed necessary to create "my country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty...."

[Low C Sharp]

there's a little irony in condemning the Confederacy for treason against a country itself born in treason.

No, the difference is that Americans are not claiming, right now, to be loyal citizens of the British Crown who happen to also honor treason against Great Britain. I don't revere Great Britain at all, so there's no hypocrisy in honoring treason against it. But if you claim to be a loyal United States citizen, it is hypocritical to honor anti-US treason.

Further, all treason is not created equal. I believe that having a hereditary monarch at the head of a government is an inherently unjust and evil system. Treason against a monarchy to launch a democracy can be a high moral action. Treason against a democracy because you lost an election cannot be. There is no irony in distinguishing the two, or finding one more honorable than the other.

[BluPhire]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

No, the difference is that Americans are not claiming, right now, to be loyal citizens of the British Crown who happen to also honor treason against Great Britain. I don't revere Great Britain at all, so there's no hypocrisy in honoring treason against it. But if you claim to be a loyal United States citizen, it is hypocritical to honor anti-US treason.

Further, all treason is not created equal. I believe that having a hereditary monarch at the head of a government is an inherently unjust and evil system. Treason against a monarchy to launch a democracy can be a high moral action. Treason against a democracy because you lost an election cannot be. There is no irony in distinguishing the two, or finding one more honorable than the other.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by BluPhire

One person's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by BluPhire

Many would disagree. Most historians say that was a stalemate.

But that's another conversation for another day, because you have to define what were the war objectives of each side.

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

The Articles of Confederation went into effect in 1777, years before the end of the war and GW's pre-emptive abdication. It's not like the country said, "Shoot, GW doesn't want to be king, so we'll have to come up with some other system." There was already a federal democracy in place at that point, as well as in each state's legislature. Yes, GW might have been able to drum up support for an American monarchy if he'd wanted to, but he would have had a real fight against practically every other national leader. For most of the war, American soldiers were fighting on behalf of what was already a democracy, against a monarch.

This is a sleeper. What is this historical discussion/debated rooted in?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This is a sleeper. What is this historical discussion/debated rooted in?

You mean where is it coming from? LCS's theory that the Revolution was about monarchy = evil.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

You mean where is it coming from? LCS's theory that the Revolution was about monarchy = evil.

No, what is the point of this entire discussion.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Further, all treason is not created equal. I believe that having a hereditary monarch at the head of a government is an inherently unjust and evil system. Treason against a monarchy to launch a democracy can be a high moral action. Treason against a democracy because you lost an election cannot be. There is no irony in distinguishing the two, or finding one more honorable than the other.

Treason is treason. Ask all the people who lost their heads over it.

And as a reminder, many people wanted GW to be king instead of president...so obviously they didn't think the system was "inherently unjust and evil." We're nothing but lucky GW was the awesome dude that he was and didn't want to do it. That is what he TRULY should be remembered for.

[DrPhil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFrQfeI0wFA

You're welcome.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

War of 1812.

But since we weren't British subjects at tha point, it wasn't treason.

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

No, the difference is that Americans are not claiming, right now, to be loyal citizens of the British Crown who happen to also honor treason against Great Britain. I don't revere Great Britain at all, so there's no hypocrisy in honoring treason against it. But if you claim to be a loyal United States citizen, it is hypocritical to honor anti-US treason.

Further, all treason is not created equal. I believe that having a hereditary monarch at the head of a government is an inherently unjust and evil system. Treason against a monarchy to launch a democracy can be a high moral action. Treason against a democracy because you lost an election cannot be. There is no irony in distinguishing the two, or finding one more honorable than the other.

A very subjective (and perhaps not quite historically accurate*) way to view it -- which is fine as long as as you recognize that there other valid subjective ways to view it.

* Our revolution was not necessarily against monarchy per se, but against a government (monarchy and parliament) in which we had no representation, prompting us to choose a truer democracy. As for the civil war, it was an open question at the time whether states could choose to leave the union. The Civil War established that they cannot.

ETA: As for treason against a democracy because of losing an election, I think that's a rather gross oversimplification. I think it more accurate to say that those in the Confederacy saw themselves as rejecting a governmental arrangement that they believed didn't represent their interests -- not unlike those involved in the Revolution.

[Low C Sharp]

The Articles of Confederation went into effect in 1777, years before the end of the war and GW's pre-emptive abdication. It's not like the country said, "Shoot, GW doesn't want to be king, so we'll have to come up with some other system." There was already a federal democracy in place at that point, as well as in each state's legislature. Yes, GW might have been able to drum up support for an American monarchy if he'd wanted to, but he would have had a real fight against practically every other national leader. For most of the war, American soldiers were fighting on behalf of what was already a democracy, against a monarch.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

The Articles of Confederation went into effect in 1777, years before the end of the war and GW's pre-emptive abdication. It's not like the country said, "Shoot, GW doesn't want to be king, so we'll have to come up with some other system." There was already a federal democracy in place at that point, as well as in each state's legislature. Yes, GW might have been able to drum up support for an American monarchy if he'd wanted to, but he would have had a real fight against practically every other national leader. For most of the war, American soldiers were fighting on behalf of what was already a democracy, against a monarch.

And the Confederate soldiers were fighting on behalf of a democracy against a democracy they felt did not represent their views.

[Low C Sharp]

those in the Confederacy saw themselves as rejecting a governmental arrangement that they believed didn't represent their interests -- not unlike those involved in the Revolution.

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.

33 girl, take another look at my post #218. I didn't say that the revolution was about monarchies being evil. I said that _I_ believed they are evil, and that's why I view rebellion against one as morally distinct from rebellion against a democracy. In other words, I said nothing about what motivated the revolutionaries, only my standard for judging their actions. My only claim about revolutionary war soldiers was that for most of the war, they were "fighting on behalf of what was already a democracy, against a monarch." Do you disagree with that?

[MysticCat]

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.