The Real problem with cancel culture

[viper37]

Virtually no white person in the North believed in racial equality in 1860 (Lincoln included) and yet a majority opposed slavery.  Matters stood quite differently in the South.

Yes.  It is surprising how people born and raised in a given situation, mixed with religion that gives them inalienable rights over other people, can be resistant to change.

The argument seems to be that because the North was not perfect, and was a morally flawed society, therefore one can not make any moral judgments at all between the two causes...

The argument is that the Southern States had the right to declare independence, as per the rules of the time generally used to decide any other matter.  The causes are irrelevant.  Be it the protection of slavery, the deportation of French Catholics, the conquest of Indian lands, it all amounts to the same.

The secondary argument is that once your nation has seceded and war is upon you, you can either do your patriotic duty and fight, even if you disagree, or leave or betray your nation.

Lots of people here have hinted that they would gladly have betrayed their friends, neighbors, families in order to pursue a 21st century ideal in the mid 19th century.  I am expressing doubts about that.

The difference between the Government of London passing laws to tax its colonies and set aside lands for Indians and Catholics over the objection of local assemblies is minimally more unjust than the Government of Washington passing laws to decide the future of slavery over the objection of local assemblies.  The most populous part of the Empire simply decides what is right and what is wrong.

In one case, they are heroes, patriots.  Even if they are slavers.  Even if they wanted to expand without constraints, over the objections of the neighboring nations who had treaties with the colonial empire.

On the other case, they want to keep on using slave labor to maintain their economy, but they are reviled as traitors.

Square in the middle, you got a bunch of white dudes rebelling against an encroaching central government whose main gripe was that they couldn't bring their slaves with them in the new land.  And the US annexing this territory and a bunch of other.  Specifically so slaves could grow crops over there.

I don't see much difference between the Confederacy or that.

[Josquius]

It is interesting with the confederacy that so many of the arguments focus on "secession bad! " and "how dare they betray us!" and the like rather than the simple undemocratic nature of their secession in support of  cementing the most anti-democratic cause going.

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.
The CSA of course wasn't.

[garbon]

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?

[Berkut]

viper, the claim that everyone in the South mostly went along is just simply false. The idea that the only options are whole hearted buying into the cause of "betrayal" is false as well. Many simply refused to serve what they saw as a bad cause. Many did serve even though it was a shitty cause because they were drafted, and simply deserted as soon as able, or refused to fight particularly hard. There is not binary here in how individuals chose to serve.

And your claim that Germany was not a democracy? WTF????

Who are you to say it wasn't a democracy in 1933-45? I bet the Nazi's would claim to have the popular support of the people. And you are actively arguing that you cannot judge the validity of a "democracy" just because they didn't let their black people vote! You are arguing that the Confederacy has a *moral* legitimacy based on it being a "democracy", while claiming that the Nazi's do not have such legitimacy because....wait for it....they did not have elections after the one were the democratic people elected the fascist to lead them? (And yes, I know THAT election was utter bullshit as well, but YOU don't get to make that argument).

The Nazi's were not a legitimate democractic government. And neither was the Confederacy. The Confederacy did not have the will of the people behind it. It was not a democracy in any sense of the word. It was not a bad democracy, it was not a democracy at all.

You can argue, for better or for worse, that if they colonies had truly had a "perfect democracy" they may very well have all voted to rebel against the Crown in an effort to get government that better represents them. Maybe true, maybe not - but at least the argument can be made. After all, the initial rebellion was not even an attempt at independence, but just an attempt at local governance.

You cannot argue at all that if the South in 1861 had perfect democracy where everyone who ought to get to vote gets to vote, that they would have voted to secede in order to protect slavery. I think it is rather safe to say that 100% of the slaves are probably voting no on that one.

Hence the Confederacy cannot possibly be called democratic, anymore then Nazi German was democratic. The will of the people had no bearing on the political choices of its leaders in either case.

[grumbler]

Yes.  It is surprising how people born and raised in a given situation, mixed with religion that gives them inalienable rights over other people, can be resistant to change.

What religion was that?

The argument is that the Southern States had the right to declare independence, as per the rules of the time generally used to decide any other matter.  The causes are irrelevant.  Be it the protection of slavery, the deportation of French Catholics, the conquest of Indian lands, it all amounts to the same.

No rules of the at time, or any other time, gave states the "right" to secede.  The political structure of the time gave them the power to secede, but not the economic and military power to secede successfully.

[Josquius]

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?

I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

[grumbler]

I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

All democracies are flawed.  As are all non-democracies.  Only children believe in perfect governments.

[The Minsky Moment]

The argument is that the Southern States had the right to declare independence, as per the rules of the time generally used to decide any other matter. 

There was no rule of the time that permitted the southern states to secede; the well understood rule of the time was that they could not.  The Constitution created a union of the people of the states, not a union of separate states (as with the earlier confederation).  the constitution did not permit states to withdraw.  This was well understood at the time - as there has been at least two earlier episodes where the question of secession of a state had been raised and then rejected for the reasons summarized in Jackson's proclamation

[PDH]

As has been beaten to death a million times, the Civil Wars moved the USA from "These United States" to "The United States" and basically set that a member state cannot just take their toys and leave without consent of the rest of the federal state.

[The Brain]

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?

I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

I am not aware of any mechanism in US law for secession. Is there such a mechanism? If not, then accepting secession would mean throwing the Rule of Law out the window.

I wouldn't be surprised if secession would require that you first amend the constitution. If so, then that's the logical first step for secessionists.

[The Brain]

From a more practical standpoint, of course, if you get parts of the nuclear weapons forces on your side as a secessionist the chances of the US accepting your secession increase. Nukes were not available to the Confederacy, horrible fanfiction notwithstanding.

[Sheilbh]

I am not aware of any mechanism in US law for secession. Is there such a mechanism? If not, then accepting secession would mean throwing the Rule of Law out the window.

I wouldn't be surprised if secession would require that you first amend the constitution. If so, then that's the logical first step for secessionists.

I don't think that necessarily follows. You can create a lawful mechanism for secession having accepted it - and practically speaking if Congress and the other states accept a secession, what does a Supreme Court ruling saying that's unlawful actually mean? You know what divisions do they have to enforce that?

Although I think practically secession normally comes in a "constitutional moment" when the rules are in flux and things are being settled so I think it would just be part of that.

[garbon]

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?

I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.

[Josquius]

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?

I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.

It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.

[garbon]

If any American state(s) today were to have a free and fair referendum where a majority of the electorate vote for independence that should be totally kosher.

I'm not sure such a vote would matter much?

I don't get your meaning.
You mean the government wouldn't respect it? Agreed. And this is a sign of a flawed democracy. But hardly America's only flaw.

I'm not sure it is a flaw that we don't want to let our country break into component pieces the way the English seem to feel about the UK.

It's a huge flaw.
A country that only exists by force is no democracy.
Letting random secessionists get just one 50%+1 vote isn't the way either. But a clear majority of the electorate? There's just no excuse for forcing them to remain part of the country.

The UK doesn't seem concerned about clear majorities, if Brexit and talk around Scottish independence are any indication.

And force? Why are you positing soldiers in the streets?