Reply #73: Parallels in Iraq

[RoyGBiv]

Yes, there are, striking ones.

I've been arguing with myself over whether I really feel like getting into this deeply. I've noticed some very knee-jerk responses to this question; the notion of Southern "traitors" being the catch-all that supposedly ends the question of whether Southern Pride has any valuable meaning is particularly notable in light of other discussions in this forum.

It makes me question certain individuals' value system. How one decries so-called treason on the one hand and openly, and loudly, supports it on another is a bit beyond my tolerance levels. For my part, the word "treason" is so hot with contested connotations that I find it less than useful even to use it except when dealing with individual acts of individuals in a clearly defined context. The Civil War as a context for such a discussion is not clearly defined by any reasonable measure.

What I mean here is that the word "traitor" has no inherent moral component. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, et al were traitors and fully admitted it, and we celebrate them. I guess one major difference with the southern traitors of 1861 is that they, with a few exceptions, refused to admit it. The other major difference was that they fought for a bad cause. But, that still doesn't end the discussion, unless by "end" we simply mean staking out some sort of manufactured moral high ground and daring anyone to try to knock us off of it. I won't bother to play that schoolyard game.