 |
| |
|
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
That's not a proper ends justifies the means argument.
An "end justifies the means" argument would be saying that you are going to do something bad in order to effect something good.
Killing someone about to walk into a school and bomb it is not bad by any sense of the word. |
Say its a teacher and the bomb was planted on them. They don't know it's on them, but it's a choice between letting them go into school and kill lots of people or shooting them and having the bomb go off away from people. You can't warn the person, you only have the shot at them. That more to your liking?
quote:
The argument is pretty much the same. |
Well I certainly don't think so.
quote:
You don't like how the Constitution is written? Fine, there's a method to change it. |
Sorry, but the south didn't attempt to change the constitution either, they simply jumped ship. And while they were gone we were able to get abolition passed, so its their own damn faults. They could have stayed and prevented the laws from passing, but since they left they lost that right. You want to look at this as one soverign nation fighting another, then look at it as we invaded you, won the war, and you became part of our territory...so submit to our laws and rule 
quote:
Yep, and it's only the most important document in American government. |
And it's meant to be interpreted, not read at face value. It's not the supreme law of the land, it's the guidelines for our leaders to follow. It has some flexibility to it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
I totally agree with the article (big surprise  ). 
The article fails to mention, BTW, that Lincoln used federal troops to massacre Amerindians and break strikes.
I might also add that Yankee tariffs, which lead to the impoverishment of poor farmers, black and white, helped to insure discord, rather than solidarity, between the two groups. So, de-facto slavery remained legal decades after its supposed abolition.
Regarding state's rights, it would be important to point out that the power to levy tariffs was an explicit power granted to the federal government in the Constitution. But that's a failing of the Constitution, just like allowing slavery and a number of other things were, and people, IMO, have every right to throw off these shackles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
Southeners really have a stick up their *ss.
Was Lincoln racist and did he not give a damn about the actual slaves? YES, just like the 90% of the northern Population.
Can slavery ever be justified, even with the 10th ammendment? NO. The legitimate base of power for any government must come for the people, this is the theory behind modern (as opposed to classical) democracy. Saying that 30-40-50% of the population is not 'human', that they are not classified as citizens, and then calling it democracy and demanding your rights are defended, well, its SH*T
As for 'attrocities' vs. Southerners- Many acts were by local commanders, plus modern all out war is bad, as Sherman (good man! ) said. Besides, why could we have not labelled every souther citizen a traitor, to which the constitutionally mandated punishment is death? The south wanted to rebel, the North said no. A war was fought, the north won, the south is back in the union.
The major point Southern boys never meantion is that the Feds are a citizens way against local tyranny. One is usually oppresed by local authorities, not some facelss one far away, yet citizens are able to ally themselves with the far away authority vs. local tyranny to gain their rights. The greatest blooming of Southern power and freedom, all came after the crushing of the Southern aristocracy by the Federal powers. Southeners should thank lincoln as much as the decendents of slaves. He freed you, so show some respect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Say its a teacher and the bomb was planted on them. They don't know it's on them, but it's a choice between letting them go into school and kill lots of people or shooting them and having the bomb go off away from people. You can't warn the person, you only have the shot at them. That more to your liking? |
Then in that scenario, I don't believe there would be a legal right to kill the teacher. Her family would have all kinds of legitimate wrongful death suits, probably even murder, in both civil and criminal court against the shooter, the shooter's agency (FBI probably), and all the way up the chain.
quote:
Well I certainly don't think so. |
And I disagree
quote:
Sorry, but the south didn't attempt to change the constitution either, they simply jumped ship. And while they were gone we were able to get abolition passed, so its their own damn faults. They could have stayed and prevented the laws from passing, but since they left they lost that right. You want to look at this as one soverign nation fighting another, then look at it as we invaded you, won the war, and you became part of our territory...so submit to our laws and rule |
The South didn't HAVE to change the Constitution to keep slavery, or to keep their States Rights - those things were already theirs. They chose, rather, to exercise their OTHER right, that of secession.
quote:
And it's meant to be interpreted, not read at face value. It's not the supreme law of the land, it's the guidelines for our leaders to follow. It has some flexibility to it. |
Actually it damn well IS the Supreme Law of the Land.
quote:
Southeners really have a stick up their *ss. |
**** you too.
quote:
Can slavery ever be justified, even with the 10th ammendment? NO. The legitimate base of power for any government must come for the people, this is the theory behind modern (as opposed to classical) democracy. Saying that 30-40-50% of the population is not 'human', that they are not classified as citizens, and then calling it democracy and demanding your rights are defended, well, its SH*T |
I'm not talking what is morally right and morally wrong - hell if you are going to make "committing a moral wrong" a crime, then for damn sure YOU'D be going to jail, unless you've never done anything that could be called morally wrong. I certainly have.
No, the discussion is based on what was legal, not what was right.
quote:
As for 'attrocities' vs. Southerners- Many acts were by local commanders |
Those acts had the blessing of higher authority.
quote:
, plus modern all out war is bad, as Sherman (good man! ) said. |
So would that argument have worked at Nuremberg, I wonder?
quote:
Besides, why could we have not labelled every souther citizen a traitor, to which the constitutionally mandated punishment is death? The south wanted to rebel, the North said no. A war was fought, the north won, the south is back in the union. |
The Confederate citizens BY DEFINITION were not traitors because they were not US citizens. Once you secede from a nation, you de facto renounce citizenship in that nation. It's only logical.
Further, the South didn't by any means rebel. The peaeably and through legal State conventions opted to leave the Union. The US committed the first aggressive acts.
quote:
The major point Southern boys never meantion is that the Feds are a citizens way against local tyranny. One is usually oppresed by local authorities, not some facelss one far away, yet citizens are able to ally themselves with the far away authority vs. local tyranny to gain their rights. The greatest blooming of Southern power and freedom, all came after the crushing of the Southern aristocracy by the Federal powers. Southeners should thank lincoln as much as the decendents of slaves. He freed you, so show some respect. |
So we should thank the North for Reconstruction, should we? We should thank the North for the 14th Amendment which destroyed State Sovereignty, and that was illegally railroaded through, should we? I suppose we should also thank the North for forcing integration in our schools - sovereign State functions which the feds had no right to interfere in.
Bullshit!
States' Rights have been trampled on ever since the Civil War, and I won't be thanking anyone for that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
The greatest blooming of Southern power and freedom, all came after the crushing of the Southern aristocracy by the Federal powers. |
The Southern aristocracy was never crushed; only it (like other Southern interests) was excluded from the federal gov't. Rather than doing anything substancial, the feds opted to hand local power back to the feudal lords.
The Yankee leadership cared about little but their precious tariffs. The only attempt at real emancipation, when Sherman broke up the plantation land around the Atlantic and gave it to freedmen, was immediately countermanded by Johnson.
quote:
Southeners should thank lincoln as much as the decendents of slaves. He freed you, so show some respect. |
Bullshit. Lincoln supported abolition only due to pressures internal, and more importantly, external. Any other competent politician would've done the same in his situation.
quote:
The south wanted to rebel, the North said no. |
Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution, so the North had no authority to say "no."
quote:
We should thank the North for the 14th Amendment which destroyed State Sovereignty, and that was illegally railroaded through, should we? |
Absolutely! It's definitely one of the most important Amendments in the Constitution. Without it, the Bill of Rights wouldn't have applied to states.
quote:
I suppose we should also thank the North for forcing integration in our schools - sovereign State functions which the feds had no right to interfere in. |
Forced public school integration had adaquete justification. If not from the 14th Amendment (and its "equal protection from states" clause), certainly from the court cases fleshing it out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
 |
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
So if someone is a racist, that's okay now? Hmmm... |
I'm sure that's news to Frederick Douglas....
Lincoln was great for one reason; He ensured that the Confederate States of White America wouldn't seperate. Whether or not he was a abolitionist doesn't matter (he wasn't). He was great for preserving the Union. His stretching of the Constitution was tiny compared to what the Confederate government was doing to their own Constitution, they instituted drafts, rationing, etc. a full year before the Union did.
Strictly speaking, while the end result was a "blockade" of Southern ports, the executive order stated the "closing of ports within the territories and states currently in rebellion(I guess oklahoma had a bustling port)", making it a bit more legal.
Habeas Corpus? Yeah, that was bad. But I would have probaly done the same in a second, the country was falling apart, and he knew that all means were necessary to prevent the secession of Maryland.
On a side note, speaking as a Aggie, I'd like to point out that of the 11 or so states that seceded, only Texas had the grounds to do so. One thing many historians fail to bring up(except in Texas Histories) was Lincoln's telegraphing to Houston, effectively saying the Union would recognize a Independant Texas, but not one part of the CSA.
Stars and Stripes forever! Down with the CSA!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Then in that scenario, I don't believe there would be a legal right to kill the teacher. Her family would have all kinds of legitimate wrongful death suits, probably even murder, in both civil and criminal court against the shooter, the shooter's agency (FBI probably), and all the way up the chain. |
Oh good, then I sincerely hope you don't ever have to make that choice. Kill one person save 100, or not do anything and let 'em all die. ****ing brilliant logic there DF 
quote:
The South didn't HAVE to change the Constitution to keep slavery, or to keep their States Rights - those things were already theirs. They chose, rather, to exercise their OTHER right, that of secession. |
And I disagree with this. It's ONE nation, just because a state says that they don't want to be a part of the union anymore doesn't mean that they will be guaranteed soveirgnty. If the Union says "sorry, you can't leave" and takes the state back by force, than it does not matter. You lost!
quote:
Actually it damn well IS the Supreme Law of the Land. |
It cannot and should not be read exactly as it is written because times change, things change, and people change.
quote:
I'm not talking what is morally right and morally wrong - hell if you are going to make "committing a moral wrong" a crime, then for damn sure YOU'D be going to jail, unless you've never done anything that could be called morally wrong. I certainly have.
No, the discussion is based on what was legal, not what was right. |
Well, personally, I'm glad that what's 'right' occured rather than what YOU think is legal. You defend the hypocritical south and call them heroes of democracy and popular soverignty, but any argument about this is a joke. You think government should be followed by the book, that change should only occur legally. Well if that's the case the slaves never would have been freed...they'd never be able to vote themselves into freedom! All people should be guaranteed the right to participate in their government through direct voting, and the Confederacy that you so support did NO SUCH THING!
quote:
The Confederate citizens BY DEFINITION were not traitors because they were not US citizens. Once you secede from a nation, you de facto renounce citizenship in that nation. It's only logical. |
I secede from the United States. Therefore I am not subject to any of their laws.
quote:
Further, the South didn't by any means rebel. The peaeably and through legal State conventions opted to leave the Union. The US committed the first aggressive acts. |
Depends on who you see as the legal owner of Ft. Sumter...the nation or the state.
quote:
So we should thank the North for Reconstruction, should we? We should thank the North for the 14th Amendment which destroyed State Sovereignty, and that was illegally railroaded through, should we? I suppose we should also thank the North for forcing integration in our schools - sovereign State functions which the feds had no right to interfere in. |
Oh, but David...the 14th Amendment was enacted legally by the government  The constitution WAS changed, and your beloved south wasn't present to vote on the issue...so you have THEM to blame.
quote:
States' Rights have been trampled on ever since the Civil War, and I won't be thanking anyone for that. |
Only a shame they weren't squashed before the Civil War happened 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Orange - quote:
You all seem to think it wasn't about Slavery anyway, so I don't see why you push this when it applies. |
If you will notice, I said for those who think Lincoln was great for ending slavery, not for those of us who don't count that issue as the driving force behind Lincoln's actions.
quote:
Besides, Sudan isn't our territory. The Confederacy was (whether or not you say they were a separate nation ) |
The Confederacy was a separate nation (whether or not you say they were not a separate nation) Besides, the principle is whether or not a man has the right to force others to die to end slavery, not whether he has that right when the slavery is a few hundred miles away or a few thousand. The immorality of slavery is not limited by borders...
quote:
However, I would commend Bush if he saught a peaceful way to end slavery in Sudan through Diplomacy Slavery is wrong... |
But not if he forced you to go and die to end slavery there? That was my question, not if Bush sought a peaceful, diplomatic end to slavery.
Another sidenote concerning Lincoln, I've read that the commander of the military prison at Andersonville housing federal POWs sent requests to Lincoln for food and aid because the blockade and war were depleting resources. Lincoln was even asked for prisoner exchanges to prevent the tragedy at Andersonville. He rejected all these requests and allowed Union soldiers to die there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caesar the Great
|
 |
New York
Apr 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
Actually... I just wrote a paper on this matter.
Lincoln was certainly no abolitionist, he did believe slavery was morally wrong, but under no circumstances did he think blacks and whites were equal. Many of the things he did, including the Emancipation Proclamation were to gain popular support. Many of the actions he took were necessary to ensure the survival of the Union, perhaps some were excessive, but nonetheless necessary.
He was certainly not a humanitarian or a kind man, rather he was a politican, a brilliant politican. He was capable of manipulating his cabinet, his Congress and his country with ease. Better than anyone, he knew what to say, who to say it to, and when to say it. The Emancipation Proclomation is a prime example of this. He was able to abolish slavery without freeing a single slave. By doing so, the border states remained happy, the abolitionists remained happy, the troops were given a new cause, the south was demoralized and perhaps most importantly British support for the South was lost. It is for this that he should be given praise.
Although Lincoln did introduce several of the 'despotic' principles into the government because of the war, he did not believe they should be implemented during peace time. Capital was necessary to fight the war, this was simply a means of outproducing the South. Lincoln was clearly sympathetic to the South and wanted to heal the wounds of the nation, "...let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieveand cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." (Second Inaugural dress)
Several other points, Lincoln cannot be blamed for the actions of soldiers during the war. His 'trampling' of the constitution is again a part of his political genius. Yes, the sterotypes of Lincoln are incorrect, he was not an abolitionist, nor was he an exceptionally kind and humanitarian person, but he was undoubtly one of the greatest American politicians and thus celebrating his birthday is not a bad thing, after all we do still remember the ides of march.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Caesar - quote:
Lincoln was clearly sympathetic to the South and wanted to heal the wounds of the nation, "...let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieveand cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." (Second Inaugural dress) |
I don't buy it. An Inaugural Address doesn't reveal a President's true feelings, taking great delight in hearing stories of Sherman's slash and burn total war in the South speaks volumes about Lincoln (assuming Sherman wasn't lying). Maybe laughing at these stories was just another example of Lincoln's "political genius".
quote:
Many of the actions he took were necessary to ensure the survival of the Union, perhaps some were excessive, but nonetheless necessary. |
The slaughter of several hundred thousand people in addition to all the other evils to "save the Union" raises the question: was the Union worth saving? No...
quote:
Lincoln cannot be blamed for the actions of soldiers during the war. |
His reaction to Sherman's exploits indicates support of total war.
quote:
His 'trampling' of the constitution is again a part of his political genius. |
That isn't a virtue, it's a disgrace. History has many "political geniuses" who were evil.
quote:
he was undoubtly one of the greatest American politicians |
My definition of greatness differs from yours.
quote:
thus celebrating his birthday is not a bad thing, after all we do still remember the ides of march. |
Ah, Caesar the Great? I don't remember the Ides of March as a lamentable occasion, but just another political assassination of a dictator by other wanna-be dictators.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Berz--
Frankly, I've seen people (including myself) try and try and try again to reason with you and David about this, and the mental image that springs to mind are Olympic sprinters running headlong into a 2-foot thick brick wall. So I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with you. I will, however, make richly-deserved humorous comments at your expense as a way to vent my frustration.
And yes, I do make those comments to the face of people when it has been earned. And yes, I realize that the article wasn't written by a Newsmaxer; but the fact that it is so popular there shows what kind of credibility it has. And for the record, no educated person in this country thinks Lincoln is a saint; he was deeply, deeply flawed. But he held the country together, and put down an armed rebellion by a bunch of traitors whose main goal was the subjugation of an entire race of people. And you ought to thank the heavens. If he had let the CSA go, it'd be an international laughingstock today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
If he had let the CSA go, it'd be an international laughingstock today. |
Oh, that's a load of horseshit and you know it.
Fact is, you can't predict what the world would look like today, so don't even try.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
If you will notice, I said for those who think Lincoln was great for ending slavery, not for those of us who don't count that issue as the driving force behind Lincoln's actions. |
Ok, well most learned people know that Lincoln's sole purpose of the war was not to abolish slavery. However, most people are also learned enough not to dismiss it completely. It existed, his agenda was to abolish slavery whether or not there was secondary reasons for it. The north supported it, and we went to war.
quote:
The Confederacy was a separate nation (whether or not you say they were not a separate nation) Besides, the principle is whether or not a man has the right to force others to die to end slavery, not whether he has that right when the slavery is a few hundred miles away or a few thousand. The immorality of slavery is not limited by borders... |
In this case, i feel it is. The federal government had soverignty to all the land, including the states. Slavery that was existing in its own country it had the right to abolish. Unfortunately for the south, this was done legally in their absence, and they have only theirselves to blame for it. They also have themselves to blame for some of the loss of life.
quote:
But not if he forced you to go and die to end slavery there? That was my question, not if Bush sought a peaceful, diplomatic end to slavery. |
First of all: I believe in voluntary military. That didn't exist at this time. At this time, you were drafted - you did what you were told. Now the draft is almost obsolete...but the South is just as immoral to draft men to defend their 'borders' against the very nation that they belong to. I don't believe the CSA was its own nation, it lacked soveirgnty.
quote:
Another sidenote concerning Lincoln, I've read that the commander of the military prison at Andersonville housing federal POWs sent requests to Lincoln for food and aid because the blockade and war were depleting resources. Lincoln was even asked for prisoner exchanges to prevent the tragedy at Andersonville. He rejected all these requests and allowed Union soldiers to die there. |
Again, no one is saying anything about Lincoln being a great man. Don't know why this is relevant. He ran the war as he saw it should be run. He made decisions, if they were wrong so be it, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his wartime morality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
**** you too. |
Love the civilized debate, no? But I guess I did start it.
quote:
I'm not talking what is morally right and morally wrong - hell if you are going to make "committing a moral wrong" a crime, then for damn sure YOU'D be going to jail, unless you've never done anything that could be called morally wrong. I certainly have.
No, the discussion is based on what was legal, not what was right. |
What is legal is decided by who's in power- unless one seeks to base law on morality and values, one must base it on cohercion and force. Either way, you lose, since slavery was morally corrupt, and by force the north rewrote the law.
quote:
Those acts had the blessing of higher authority. |
And so did bombing population centers in WW2. Modern war is a terrible thing. Also, you seem to leave out southern attrocities in border areas, where most of the attorcities happened, or andersonville, (I think this is right) the infamous prisoner of war camp.
quote:
So would that argument have worked at Nuremberg, I wonder? |
Comparing attrocities is a simple way of ignoring reality. What the Nazis did can't be compared, in either motivation nor scale, to what the north did in the civil war.
quote:
The Confederate citizens BY DEFINITION were not traitors because they were not US citizens. Once you secede from a nation, you de facto renounce citizenship in that nation. It's only logical.
Further, the South didn't by any means rebel. The peaeably and through legal State conventions opted to leave the Union. The US committed the first aggressive acts. |
And who said that the Union viewed the secession as right? You define them as citizens of another state, the Union did not, and since the Union won, well, the Union is right, if we whish to use your morality free legalistic arguments.
[q]
So we should thank the North for Reconstruction, should we? We should thank the North for the 14th Amendment which destroyed State Sovereignty, and that was illegally railroaded through, should we? I suppose we should also thank the North for forcing integration in our schools - sovereign State functions which the feds had no right to interfere in.
Bullshit!
States' Rights have been trampled on ever since the Civil War, and I won't be thanking anyone for that. [/QUOTE]
Nothing in the constitution can be unconstitutional, and according to the articles (yes, the constitution actually consists of parts other than the Bill of Rights) the constution can be ammended. 2/3 of the states felt that the 14th ammendment was good-so it is.
The state, as in Texas, is in no way a more valid or more knowledgable arbitrer of policy than the feds, or even counties. You base your argument on legal precepts that are dead- the very fact that the Confederacy had to move towards greater centralization as the war went on, and that the whole State's Right's ideology was a reason for their downfall shows that a nation like the US is today could not have survived as a sort of Loose confederation which you believe was what we where. The history of the US has been moving towards greater centralization of powers, just like with all other major state. If you don't like this general historical trend, well, I am sorry, but there is nowhere to go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Guynemer - quote:
Frankly, I've seen people (including myself) try and try and try again to reason with you and David about this, and the mental image that springs to mind are Olympic sprinters running headlong into a 2-foot thick brick wall. So I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with you. I will, however, make richly-deserved humorous comments at your expense as a way to vent my frustration. |
Yeah, launching ad hominems is how you define "reason" now? If it was so deserved, why didn't you back it up with anything remotely resembling proof? Shall I remind you what I said to Goingonit to motivate your insult?
quote:
So if someone is a racist, that's okay now? Hmmm... |
That was my response to his argument that we should not judge a man by his beliefs (or deeds). Why you found that so upsetting is beyond me, must be a personal grudge.
quote:
And yes, I do make those comments to the face of people when it has been earned. |
I don't think so, unless you post from the hospital. Be honest, when was the last time you insulted a stranger face to face? And don't give me your BS about "earned" insults, you made an ad hominem meaning you couldn't or wouldn't show anything wrong with the author's article, much less why I "earned" your insult by responding to Goingonit. Will you now tell us you have no problems with racists? That is the implication of your insult.
quote:
And yes, I realize that the article wasn't written by a Newsmaxer; but the fact that it is so popular there shows what kind of credibility it has. |
How do you even know it's popular? Did you go there to read the thread? Nope, more BS. The thread had about 6 responses when I saw it and maybe half the people reacted negatively with comments like "get over it". And claiming the credibility of an author and his article now depends on who reads it is ludicrous.
You're being obnoxious for other reasons than the fact someone at Newsmax posted this article.
quote:
And for the record, no educated person in this country thinks Lincoln is a saint; he was deeply, deeply flawed. But he held the country together, and put down an armed rebellion by a bunch of traitors whose main goal was the subjugation of an entire race of people. |
The South seceded, it didn't rebel. The latter requires that the government being dis-obeyed have the authority in the first place. The Constitution never gave Congress the authority to prevent secession nor prohibit the states from seceding. And the South was not subjugating an entire race of people.
quote:
And you ought to thank the heavens. If he had let the CSA go, it'd be an international laughingstock today. |
No way in hell would I thank a man who sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. And I'm not sure why the CSA would be a laughing stock, they were well ahead of most of the world at the time. This is just another unsupported assertion.
GePap - quote:
Southeners really have a stick up their *ss. |
I'm not a southerner, what do you have stuck up yours? Oh yeah, prejudice...
quote:
Can slavery ever be justified, even with the 10th ammendment? NO |
Nor can the slaughter of 600,000 men.
quote:
Saying that 30-40-50% of the population is not 'human', that they are not classified as citizens, and then calling it democracy and demanding your rights are defended, well, its SH*T |
Aside from the fact your numbers are off, the US was not a democracy. I see you got your verbal skills from Guynemer.
quote:
As for 'attrocities' vs. Southerners- Many acts were by local commanders, plus modern all out war is bad, as Sherman (good man! ) said. |
And approved of by Lincoln. The South did not behave this way when it invaded northern territory.
quote:
why could we have not labelled every souther citizen a traitor, to which the constitutionally mandated punishment is death? The south wanted to rebel, the North said no. A war was fought, the north won, the south is back in the union. |
Because secession was not prohibited by the Constitution.
quote:
The major point Southern boys never meantion is that the Feds are a citizens way against local tyranny. |
Not before the Civil war, and not after for a ~century. And now the feds are in on the oppression, which is why some people are not very happy about some of the results of the 14th Amendment and Lincoln's federal power grab.
quote:
One is usually oppresed by local authorities, not some facelss one far away, yet citizens are able to ally themselves with the far away authority vs. local tyranny to gain their rights. |
And sometimes that far off authority is the oppressor. Learn what federal policies led to the Civil War.
quote:
The greatest blooming of Southern power and freedom, all came after the crushing of the Southern aristocracy by the Federal powers. Southeners should thank lincoln as much as the decendents of slaves. He freed you, so show some respect. |
I doubt the descendants of those murdered by Lincoln feel gratitude.
quote:
Also, you seem to leave out southern attrocities in border areas, where most of the attorcities happened, or andersonville, (I think this is right) the infamous prisoner of war camp. |
Southern atrocities were committed by renegades like Quantrill, not the Southern leadership. And as I already pointed out, Andersonville was Lincoln's fault.
Orange - quote:
Ok, well most learned people know that Lincoln's sole purpose of the war was not to abolish slavery. However, most people are also learned enough not to dismiss it completely. It existed, his agenda was to abolish slavery whether or not there was secondary reasons for it. The north supported it, and we went to war. |
When was this his agenda? It sure wasn't before secession.
quote:
In this case, i feel it is. The federal government had soverignty to all the land, including the states. |
Wrong. The Congress had jurisdiction (and still does) over only a small area called Washington, D.C. and the territories. You need to cite the specific constitutional power allowing Congress to prevent secession or prohibiting the states from seceding.
quote:
Slavery that was existing in its own country it had the right to abolish. Unfortunately for the south, this was done legally in their absence, and they have only theirselves to blame for it. They also have themselves to blame for some of the loss of life. |
Wrong. The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery came after the Civil War with the South back in the Union and Congress. And blaming the South for Lincoln's actions is illogical. It wasn't the South that imposed high tariffs on trade to punish themselves to profit Lincoln's cronies in the North.
quote:
First of all: I believe in voluntary military. |
Irrelevant.
quote:
That didn't exist at this time. |
There were volunteers, but as the war dragged on and they were depleted, the draft was instituted and met with riots in much of the North.
quote:
At this time, you were drafted - you did what you were told. |
Hence my question about the immorality of forcing others to go and die to end slavery here or in the Sudan.
quote:
Don't know why this is relevant. |
I said it was a "sidenote".
quote:
He ran the war as he saw it should be run. He made decisions, if they were wrong so be it, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his wartime morality. |
quote:
I'm extremely greatful over the outcome |
So the end justifies the means?
What you guys are ignoring is that slavery would have quickly died out in the South thru other mechanisms without sacrificing the lives of all those people.
The South did not secede en masse, only a few states seceded with S Carolina followed by the others after they saw Lincoln's response. Had they remained in the Union with the immediate inclusion of western teritories into the Union, the South and slavery would have been cut off. And then peaceful means could have been used to end slavery.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
What you guys are ignoring is that slavery would have quickly died out in the South thru other mechanisms without sacrificing the lives of all those people.
The South did not secede en masse, only a few states seceded with S Carolina followed by the others after they saw Lincoln's response. Had they remained in the Union with the immediate inclusion of western teritories into the Union, the South and slavery would have been cut off. And then peaceful means could have been used to end slavery. |
Libertarians and Confederate apologists frequently make the claim that "slavery would have quickly died out in the South," but what evidence is there for this? It sounds more like wishful thinking. In fact, they sound like Marxists talking about the ultimate "withering away of the state." Yeah, right.
At the time of American independence, the people who DID consider slavery a historical relic and an embarrassment that was ultimately doomed were Southern moderates like George Mason. This was a general consensus both north & south.
But by 1860, slavery was vastly more intractable and among its adherents, a far more fanatically held belief than had been the case in 1787. There were jurisdictions where even advocating emancipation or receiving abolitionist publications through the mail were illegal (so much for freedom of speech).
Slavery was not only an industry, it was the basis for the region's entire economy. There were thousands of people whose wealth & social standing were dependent on slavery, and it's unrealistic to expect that they simply would have drifted into some other field within a decade or two of 1860, if it just hadn't been for Abe and those other busybodies.
BTW, slavery hasn't died out today, most recently for instance, in the harvesting of cocoa. Who's going to free THESE slaves -- YOU?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Many of the things he did, including the Emancipation Proclamation were to gain popular support. |
Not at all. The Emancipation Proclamation was primarily proclaimed to ward off foreign intervention. The UK and France were on the verge of intervening on the CSA' side. Only by making the war nominally against slavery, which European populations were adamant against, could Lincoln preserve the Union.
quote:
Libertarians and Confederate apologists frequently make the claim that "slavery would have quickly died out in the South," but what evidence is there for this? |
Consider that in the late 18th century, New York City had one of the highest slave populations in the country (IIRC, it was something like second only to Charleston). A few decades later, graduated emancipation was enacted (all new children of slaves became free). Slavery, in this situation, was becoming unprofitable. The only reason why the same didn't happen to the South was because of an innovation called the cotton gin.
A very similar thing was occuring in 1860. Not only that, the South's primary cash crop, cotton, was about to be undermined by the new cotton plantations opening up in Egypt and India.
quote:
It existed, his agenda was to abolish slavery whether or not there was secondary reasons for it. The north supported it, and we went to war. |
You're getting the reasons confused. Lincoln's agenda was, like other Whigs/Republicans, mercantilism; protective tariffs and subsidizing domestic industry. That is why the South seceded. Lincoln supported abolition only to insure that the South remained a Yankee colony.
quote:
And yes, I do make those comments to the face of people when it has been earned. And yes, I realize that the article wasn't written by a Newsmaxer; but the fact that it is so popular there shows what kind of credibility it has. |
Look, I'm about as far from a Newsmaxer that you can get, and I see no factual errors in the article.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:17
|
|
Hmph. Sorry DF & Berzerker, but MtG was better at coming up with smart stupid rationalizations for why the CSA wasn't that bad.
This was already brought up by orange, but it bears bringing up again, DF. You say that what is right doesn't matter; what is legal does. Where do you draw the line? I hope you don't always believe this to be true, because I can come up with more and more extreme situations to make this become utterly ridiculous. For starters, look at what orange said about the difficulty of changing the system and amending the Constitution when slaves couldn't vote. Imagine that your country is a monarchy with its Constitution saying "Whatever the king says is law. This can be changed only by royal deree from the king." Would you have politely waited for the king to abolish slavery? After all, taking up arms to change things would be illegal, right? (and even this gives the CSA more credit than I have to. I don't even theoretically have to argue that going to arms over slavery is okay, merely that going to arms against somebody who attacks your flag is reasonable)
You're also forgetting just what kind of pond scum the CSA had as a government. Alexander Stephens, the VP, immediately comes to mind, an ineffective bureaucrat and virulent racist (who talked about how the CSA was the first state to be founded on the great principle of the inequality of the white and Negro). This was not a noble group worth defending.
Ramo & Berzerker: Yes, yes, slavery might have gone away, and it might not have. Look at the rhetoric of the slavery radicals at the time. Lots of them wouldn't care if slavery was unprofitable, they'd still defend it to the death. I would say that it might have fallen apart by 1900... at the earliest. I ask if any of you would be willing to be a slave for 35 years, knowing that eventually, maybe, you might be free. Hell, 1 year.
And oh yes, one major reason for the development of the Egyptian cotton industry was... you guessed it... the interruption of Southern cotton. If the South had gone right on producing cotton, then, well, it's hard to say. But you certainly can't be sure.
I will now turn to the worst thing said in this thread.
Even those who supported abolition still did not plan to break bread with them thar negroes.
This is most unkind. Do your research. The leader of the Radical Republicans in the Senate comes to mind- I do believe that he requested (and was) buried in a black church's churchyard. Just because you've heard stories about some people don't assume everybody was a cold-blooded person who cared nothing about blacks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SnowFire
Hmph. Sorry DF & Berzerker, but MtG was better at coming up with smart stupid rationalizations for why the CSA wasn't that bad.
This was already brought up by orange, but it bears bringing up again, DF. You say that what is right doesn't matter; what is legal does. Where do you draw the line? I hope you don't always believe this to be true, because I can come up with more and more extreme situations to make this become utterly ridiculous. For starters, look at what orange said about the difficulty of changing the system and amending the Constitution when slaves couldn't vote. Imagine that your country is a monarchy with its Constitution saying "Whatever the king says is law. This can be changed only by royal deree from the king." Would you have politely waited for the king to abolish slavery? After all, taking up arms to change things would be illegal, right? (and even this gives the CSA more credit than I have to. I don't even theoretically have to argue that going to arms over slavery is okay, merely that going to arms against somebody who attacks your flag is reasonable)
You're also forgetting just what kind of pond scum the CSA had as a government. Alexander Stephens, the VP, immediately comes to mind, an ineffective bureaucrat and virulent racist (who talked about how the CSA was the first state to be founded on the great principle of the inequality of the white and Negro). This was not a noble group worth defending.
Ramo & Berzerker: Yes, yes, slavery might have gone away, and it might not have. Look at the rhetoric of the slavery radicals at the time. Lots of them wouldn't care if slavery was unprofitable, they'd still defend it to the death. I would say that it might have fallen apart by 1900... at the earliest. I ask if any of you would be willing to be a slave for 35 years, knowing that eventually, maybe, you might be free. Hell, 1 year.
And oh yes, one major reason for the development of the Egyptian cotton industry was... you guessed it... the interruption of Southern cotton. If the South had gone right on producing cotton, then, well, it's hard to say. But you certainly can't be sure. |
Well said SnowFire!!
quote:
I will now turn to the worst thing said in this thread.
Even those who supported abolition still did not plan to break bread with them thar negroes.
This is most unkind. Do your research. The leader of the Radical Republicans in the Senate comes to mind- I do believe that he requested (and was) buried in a black church's churchyard. Just because you've heard stories about some people don't assume everybody was a cold-blooded person who cared nothing about blacks. |
I'm sorry if this offended. What I was trying to convey was that even those who were in support of abolition were not all in support of equality of the races. I'm sure there were those who did support it, but my studies have led me to the conclusion that abolition in politics was political opportunism not a genuine love of the black man, and I believe that that is for the most part, correct. If you can show me otherwise, be my guest.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-02-2002 00:18
|