After all, the idea of secession from the Union was that the Union was going to force the South to get rid of their slaves. The South objected, so they tried to succeed.
However sick the idea of slavery may be, shouldn't Liberals embrace these people? They refused to listen to "the man", and they wanted their freedom to own slaves!
They were only showing their dissent to the country. Remember the Liberal catchphrase
"Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism"
Therefore, the Southerners were better Patriots than any of us will ever be! The Liberals should be waving the rebel flag to show their support for these noble Liberals.
Correct?
2007-03-28 09:05:52 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I don't think they'd know what to do because they want to embrace the confeds because they were rebeling against the government, but that would mean standing up against their best bolster voters: the african americans.
Is it just me, or do they seem a little contradictory?
2007-03-28 09:10:04 · answer #1 · answered by arwenlotr2 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, because the southerners decided not simply to "dissent," i.e. peacefully assemble and demand that the government redress their grievances -- but instead took up arms when something didn't go their way (inherently undemocratic, with a small and big "D") essentially to protect a culture that treated grown humans as cattle.
Speaking out, electing officials, signing petitions, perhaps even some forms of civil disobediance (accepting the consequences therefrom) are acts of patriotism. Taking up arms against your government is something called treason.
(And, by the way, slaveholding is not "liberal," and the southerners were not "liberals." While "dissent" may be an activity that liberals support, that doesn't mean the dissenters, regardless of their means, are "liberals." The KKK stage protests in the streets -- the ACLU defends them -- that doesn't make the KKK liberals.)
2007-03-28 09:29:07 · answer #2 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not many liberals would support a rebellion against authority waged by an even more oppressive regime.
On the other hand, liberals do tend to favor state's rights. That is something conservatives CLAIM to support, but in practice deny. Consider medical marijuana laws, for example, or reproductive rights, or gay marriage.
Historically, the south favored the working man. That is why labor unions were very strong in the south. In more recent years, however, southern politics have taken a strange twist.
2007-03-28 09:16:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
"Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism", is an oft-quoted liberal reply to the con equivalent of "if you disagree with the President you are un-American" .
To address your argument, there is a difference between "dissent" and trying to overthrow the U.S. government.
For example, if I say Bush is an idiot, it's my right to do so. That's dissent. If I say that Bush should be violently overthrown, that would be treason. Not really that difficult a concept.
2007-03-28 09:28:04 · answer #4 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. Slaveowners claimed the "freedom" to own other human beings--that's a right-wing abomination, not a liberal one.
BTW--slavery was not, in andof itself, the cause of the Civil War--though it was a contributing factor. See Eric Foner "Fre Soil, Free Labor, Free Men"--its probably the best history of the causes of the Civil War that's ever been written
2007-03-28 09:17:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
What does this ought to do with gays interior the least? The numbers of republican gays are increasing, so your factor is mute. edit: The confederacy have been a collection of susceptible minded whiny p*ssies who have been given mad by using fact they could no longer save their slaves and did no longer choose to pay their taxes. Racism aside, why the hell is it important to appreciate a collection of moronic people who tried to break this u . s . a . via seceding from it. Is it some form of conservative sadism fantasy to secede each and every time somebody to "liberal" for you starts imposing some socialist rules? The accomplice flag and gay human beings have little or no longer something to do with one yet another, Gays connect liberal extra frequently for his or her rights to marry, no bare fact fallacies on your side are mandatory.
2016-10-20 03:32:11 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if Conservatives embrace the Union Jack for the same reasons.
2007-03-28 09:21:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're saying that if you practice dissent that you support slavery... So every time you think differently than the masses, you support slavery... Wow, that's the most brilliant line of logic I've ever seen! Quick, get a MENSA application!
2007-03-28 09:24:10 · answer #8 · answered by shelly 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Right now they are too busy embracing Hezbollah flag and being good soldiers for the terrorists.
2007-03-28 09:17:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
no, liberals were the abolishonists so of course the were against the confederates.
2007-03-28 09:49:29 · answer #10 · answered by souperhandsome 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋