Treason? No. Sympathy? No. Sympathy is just a belief. Supporting rebellion against the United States government and calling for a reform of the Comfederacy is a blatant act against the US government, but that's not treason (because of legal definitions) and is a lot more than "sympathy."

Why can states not cecede if they want to?

Because there's no constitutional mechanism for it. I, for one, am in favor of amending the constitution to create a pathway for it, but I'd want it to require a referendum of at least 2/3 majority of the whole voting population in the state and can be vetoed by the governor of the state.

Cascadia shall rise again!

It isnt treason to let citizens vote on articles of secession. Part of what makes our government great is that it isnt a crime to want independence. But theres also pretty big reasons why secession was so awful and why its usually driven by people angry at the political divisions of America. Its so unlikely to happen again unless poverty and starvation take over and our economy crashed. Then youd likely have militias and uprisings not a civil war per se

Also secession would have been very bad in the 1860s because it meant extreme instability for the Union.

Texas threatened to secede when Obama won
California threatened to secede when Trump won

Both of them are capable of self sustaining economies but they dont promote articles of secession because all they have to do is threaten and boom special interest and pork barrel spending loads them up to keep them civil.

It's treason then

Most people who sympathize with the confederacy do so out of respect for their ancestors. They are proud Americans like everyone else. They are just different from you, but we should respect them and their beliefs because we have an open, welcoming, and inclusive society.

@ND, what did the confederacy stand for that the Union didn't provide? States' rights?

A state's right to do what? What right was the Union stopping them from exercising? Oh yeah, slavery.

It isn't illegal because of free speech the same reason that the Kkk is still allowed to operate in modern day America

A lot of poor people in the South who had never seen a slave let alone owned one fought and died. People memorialize those soldiers with statues and have been doing so for 150 years.

I think this is a double edged sword. On one hand the continued glamorization of confederate heroes who stood for mostly racist economic/civil policies leads to continued harboring of those same racist beliefs. On the other hand people have a right to express their beliefs even if they are fringe or aggressive. So it's really not an easy question because while the thoughts and beliefs that continued confederate sympathies create are dangerous and regressive they are also protected.

Only sith deal in absolutes, brainbomb. That's why.

@ND, the only thing a poor white had going for him in the old south was that he wasn't a slave. Damn straight they weren't going to let the last thing that made them feel superior to blacks just go away. In many ways, they had an even greater interest in slavery than slave-holders. To the poor, maintaining slavery was central to their identity, their pride. And THAT is why people are sympathetic to the confederacy. It represents a time when ANY white man would get the deference he so richly deserved (in his mind).

There were also a lot of ancestors who were killed by Confederate rebels and a lot of ancestors who were treated like property by Confederate rebels, so the memorialization of these same rebels could be taken by some as disrespect to
the ancestors of others. For that reason, I don't support posting Confederate flags and statues on public lands. If people want to celebrate the Confederacy in private on private land and honor their own ancestors, that's them and no one should interfere with them and their family, household, and beliefs.

Yes.

It was treason to be those sessionist southern democrats. They should have been hung from a sour apple tree at the end of the war. Those politians started the war but were so cowardly as to not fight in it. They should have supported President Grant and his Reconstruction plan

Brad, what is the sour apple tree reference? I know a college song with it and always wondered if it was just an old saying. Why sour apple?

I got it from 'the Civil War' PBS show from Ken Burns. One of the letters quoted that the rebels were running away and they would march int Richmond and hang Jeff Davis on 'a sour apple tree'.

A union soldier at the first battle of bull run. Unfortunately it didn't turn out that way for the union

Hauta that's not correct, poor whites saw slavery as keeping them poor as they could be undercut as the slave holders had free labor. It is the same as illegal immigrants keeping labor low today. Most southern whites soldiers were not fighting for slavery. Then they regarded their state as their country and were fighting for that reason.

Yes yes, the song DID say to hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree!
Brad, if the poor whites worked their own land, they weren't working for a wage from the slave-holder, so slaves working the next plot of land weren't stealing their jobs. Damn slaves, always driving the wages down!

Most poor whites were sharecroppers. Very few owned any land. And yes the whole slave system corrupted the economy for all but a few. That is the principle reason the north did so much better economically and was able to crush the south regardless of the better trained militia forces southern states developed, mostly because of John Brown and the Harpers Ferry fiasco

Is it treason for someone today to believe the South had reasons other than to protect the legality of slavery for seceding from the union? Absolutely not. Was it treason for the South to secede in the 1860s? Yes. But, it was also treason for the colonies to fight the war of independence. Treason is not always unjustified.

@Brad, check out http://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=431
where it says,

"NARRATOR: But most poor yeoman farmers didn’t blame the slave system for this vast inequality. In fact, most poor whites defended the institution of slavery. Knowing in their hearts that at least they were superior to slaves in one way. The whites had their freedom"

So your right about the poor whites not owning land, but wrong about everything else.

Can't believe I'm writing this, but +1 for @Manwe!

"Can't believe I'm writing this, but +1 for @Manwe!"

Thanks, man.

You need to dig deeper Hauta. There was more resentment than that piece 'suggests'. Especially as the war continued. There were a lot more desertions from the confederate army for that reason. Check out the 'free state of Jones' story.