4 ms·

If Hawaiians elect a state government with that goal, and then pass a referendum with high turn out I'd be open to considering it. But it's a false equivalency

If Hawaiians elect a state government with that goal, and then pass a referendum with high turn out I'd be open to considering it. But it's a false equivalency anyway given that: 1. No such efforts are underway. 2. Taiwan is not presently part of the PRC. 3. Taiwan merely seeks de jure recognition of its de facto independence.

blackrock 6y ago
Didn’t the Southern States do exactly this? And formed the Confederate States of America. Where did that end up?
- trynumber9 6y ago
  They had a civil rights issue (slavery) the remainder of the states could not ignore. It is another false equivalency as the PRC has never ruled over Taiwan. And the CSA did not enfranchise their populace fairly. Any such referendum was not an expression of the will of the people but merely the slave holding classes.
  - marcusverus 6y ago
    > They had a civil rights issue (slavery) the remainder of the states could not ignore. It is not true that the United States waged the war to end slavery. Though of course slavery is why the Southern states seceded, the North prosecuted the war to preserve the Union. After all, the institution of slavery remained legal in the US at the outset of the war in '61, with no end in sight--Lincoln had been selected by the Republicans specifically because he was not a radical abolitionist. Only after the North struggled to defeat the South in a timely manner (in large part due to the fact that slave labor allowed the South to field ~80% of able bodied free men) did Lincoln put out the Emancipation Proclamation in '63--expressly as a matter of military necessity. The document gave only a cursory nod to it being "believed to be an act of justice", and it only freed Southern slaves.[0] Slavery remained legal in the United States until 1865. [0] https://www.historynet.com/emancipation-proclamation-text https://www.historynet.com/emancipation-proclamation-text
  - r00fus 6y ago
    Slavery was the main cause of the civil war, but it wasn’t just human rights. Slaves gave the confederate states a massive manpower and economic advantage in the long run. Not to mention the slave trade made massive cash in itself. The union was forced as much by economics as it was by human rights, unless all the northern states would also undo their abolitionist views.

blackrock 6y ago

Didn’t the Southern States do exactly this? And formed the Confederate States of America. Where did that end up?

trynumber9 6y ago
They had a civil rights issue (slavery) the remainder of the states could not ignore. It is another false equivalency as the PRC has never ruled over Taiwan. And the CSA did not enfranchise their populace fairly. Any such referendum was not an expression of the will of the people but merely the slave holding classes.
- marcusverus 6y ago
  > They had a civil rights issue (slavery) the remainder of the states could not ignore. It is not true that the United States waged the war to end slavery. Though of course slavery is why the Southern states seceded, the North prosecuted the war to preserve the Union. After all, the institution of slavery remained legal in the US at the outset of the war in '61, with no end in sight--Lincoln had been selected by the Republicans specifically because he was not a radical abolitionist. Only after the North struggled to defeat the South in a timely manner (in large part due to the fact that slave labor allowed the South to field ~80% of able bodied free men) did Lincoln put out the Emancipation Proclamation in '63--expressly as a matter of military necessity. The document gave only a cursory nod to it being "believed to be an act of justice", and it only freed Southern slaves.[0] Slavery remained legal in the United States until 1865. [0] https://www.historynet.com/emancipation-proclamation-text https://www.historynet.com/emancipation-proclamation-text
- r00fus 6y ago
  Slavery was the main cause of the civil war, but it wasn’t just human rights. Slaves gave the confederate states a massive manpower and economic advantage in the long run. Not to mention the slave trade made massive cash in itself. The union was forced as much by economics as it was by human rights, unless all the northern states would also undo their abolitionist views.