19-02-2002 06:33									#61
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

That is correct in this case, because under no circumstances can the Constitution be violated in order to fulfill what is "right" - committing a wrong to make a right is never OK, IMO, and I also believe that it's a bigger wrong to violate the Constitution than it is to have slavery, when slavery is legal.

quote: 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."

That's not a relevant point, because slavery WAS eventually abolished all over the US and former CSA territory, yet the votes of the slaves had little or nothing to do with it. You are also not making the distinction between an absolute monarchy and a representative democracy/republic.

quote: 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.

Oh I'll grant you that. The Southern politicians were little better than their Northern counterparts in many respects - although Lincoln was still the worst of the bunch.

And at least the Southern officer class were, in general, good and moral men - men such as Jackson, Lee, etc.

	19-02-2002 06:42									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd That is correct in this case, because under no circumstances can the Constitution be violated in order to fulfill what is "right" - committing a wrong to make a right is never OK, IMO, and I also believe that it's a bigger wrong to violate the Constitution than it is to have slavery, when slavery is legal.

Sorry pal, but SnowFire's Monarchy example says it best. If you can't change the system, sometimes it's necessary to fight it! The Constitution was wrong, and it was changed. I think it's awful that anyone want to uphold a piece of paper than the liberty of hundreds of thousands of people, 'legal' or not! And what sickens me more is that it comes from the mouth of someone who is so supportive of popular soverignty!

quote: That's not a relevant point, because slavery WAS eventually abolished all over the US and former CSA territory, yet the votes of the slaves had little or nothing to do with it.

Uh, the CSA didn't vote for those amendments out of the goodness of their hearts. It was a condition of the end of the war that they ratify them. If it had been a normal unstipulated vote, it wouldn't have passed!

quote: You are also not making the distinction between an absolute monarchy and a representative democracy/republic.

The scenario given could apply to either, but obviously indicates absolute monarchy. If you can't change the law of the land peacefully, sometimes force is the only solution!

quote: Oh I'll grant you that. The Southern politicians were little better than their Northern counterparts in many respects - although Lincoln was still the worst of the bunch.

I'd prefer Lincoln to Stephens!

Admittedly, Davis wasn't THAT bad and I think he should have been allowed to regain citizenship.

quote: And at least the Southern officer class were, in general, good and moral men - men such as Jackson, Lee, etc.

Whether or not you believe they were fighting for their own soverignty, they were also fighting for the side in support of slavery. That makes them just as immoral as you consider Sherman in my mind.

	19-02-2002 06:42									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd That is correct in this case, because under no circumstances can the Constitution be violated in order to fulfill what is "right" - committing a wrong to make a right is never OK, IMO, and I also believe that it's a bigger wrong to violate the Constitution than it is to have slavery, when slavery is legal

That's ridiculous, and legalistic to the point of complete idiocy.

	19-02-2002 06:44									#64
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: That's ridiculous, and legalistic to the point of complete idiocy.

Damn right! He needs look no further than SnowFire's Monarchy example.

	19-02-2002 06:52									#65
	Support Apolyton

orange,

quote: Sorry pal, but SnowFire's Monarchy example says it best. If you can't change the system, sometimes it's necessary to fight it! The Constitution was wrong, and it was changed. I think it's awful that anyone want to uphold a piece of paper than the liberty of hundreds of thousands of people, 'legal' or not! And what sickens me more is that it comes from the mouth of someone who is so supportive of popular soverignty!

Actually, slavery was wrong and I would not have opposed slave revolts. I do oppose what the USA did to the sovereign CSA.

It's a legalistic point, but a valid distinction nonetheless.

quote: Uh, the CSA didn't vote for those amendments out of the goodness of their hearts. It was a condition of the end of the war that they ratify them. If it had been a normal unstipulated vote, it wouldn't have passed!

So it was illegally ratified, and if it had been done fairly and legally it wouldn't have passed? Yep, that about sums it up - although in the case of the 14th Amendment that is true even WITH the cheating

quote: The scenario given could apply to either, but obviously indicates absolute monarchy. If you can't change the law of the land peacefully, sometimes force is the only solution!

Agreed!
So then you'd have no problem with a violent revolt against gun control, then, I take it?

quote: Whether or not you believe they were fighting for their own soverignty, they were also fighting for the side in support of slavery. That makes them just as immoral as you consider Sherman in my mind.

Blatantly false. Lee, for example, was fighting for his home State, to whom he (correctly) felt he owed is first allegience.

	19-02-2002 06:52									#66
	Suffering from ads?

All of this is really funny, because as I recall the South fired the first shot. Lincoln didn't have to rally the remaining loyal states to the cause of saving the Union, he could have just called for revenge. In any case there is nothing in the Constitution that denies the United States the right to wage war against an aggressor.

	19-02-2002 06:54									#67
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: All of this is really funny, because as I recall the South fired the first shot. Lincoln didn't have to rally the remaining loyal states to the cause of saving the Union, he could have just called for revenge. In any case there is nothing in the Constitution that denies the United States the right to wage war against an aggressor.

Wrong.
The South had more than enough provocation to fire on Ft. Sumter, including the presence of armed foreign troops illegally within the borders of South Carolina and the invasion of the waterways of the South in an attempt to resupply the fort.

	19-02-2002 06:57									#68
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

If I were a slave, I would rebel as soon as possible. If I were free, if possible, I would lead a goddamn insurrection against the Southern feudal order. Everyone who fights for freedom has my respect.

But Lincoln fought for coercion, for exploitation, for another form of slavery. All he deserves is my contempt.

quote: 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.

The thing is, before the war, the South dumped all of the cotton it possibly could to European markets. There was a significant increase in supply of cotton, so I have trouble believing that assertion.

quote: That is correct in this case, because under no circumstances can the Constitution be violated in order to fulfill what is "right" - committing a wrong to make a right is never OK, IMO, and I also believe that it's a bigger wrong to violate the Constitution than it is to have slavery, when slavery is legal.

What makes the Constitution any more infallible than, say, Mein Kampf? Why should a person violate one, but not the other?

quote: 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.

That is certainly not true everywhere. Consider William Lloyd Garrison or John Brown, for instance.

	19-02-2002 07:00									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: What makes the Constitution any more infallible than, say, Mein Kampf? Why should a person violate one, but not the other?

The difference is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

	19-02-2002 07:01									#70
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd orange, Actually, slavery was wrong and I would not have opposed slave revolts. I do oppose what the USA did to the sovereign CSA. It's a legalistic point, but a valid distinction nonetheless.

You can't have it both ways! If you think it's legal to fight against an law that denies basic human rights if you can't vote for it, than it should be just as acceptable if they recieve support from those that can!

quote: So it was illegally ratified, and if it had been done fairly and legally it wouldn't have passed? Yep, that about sums it up - although in the case of the 14th Amendment that is true even WITH the cheating

I don't say it's illegal. We forced the south to ratify for reentrance into the Union...nothing wrong with that

quote: Agreed! So then you'd have no problem with a violent revolt against gun control, then, I take it?

This isn't about my feelings on gun control. In fact, I don't see where this applies at all unless you're trying to sneak in an anti-gun control blurb in that one can't fight gun control without guns. What's the point here DF?

quote: Blatantly false. Lee, for example, was fighting for his home State, to whom he (correctly) felt he owed is first allegience.

Well I feel he was incorrect in that. His first allegience should have been to his country, the UNITED states of America

And he got his training at West Point

	19-02-2002 07:03									#71
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The difference is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

And so is the law given in SnowFire's example

You can't escape this paradox DF...if you claim the CSA is a soverign nation, than accept that they were invaded, defeated, and once again became part of the United States and that the stipulations of the surrender allowed for the LEGAL abolition of slavery.

If you think they were not a soverign nation, than they were guilty of treason, and the Union's actions were justified.

	19-02-2002 07:05									#72
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Big surprise. All you Southern boys seem to have a bit of a slanted view of history. Despite the fact that I already knew that Lincoln didn't give a damn about abolitionism

I dunno if Berz thinks of himself as "southern" but Kansas definitely ain't typically thought of as "the south"

Since you already assume you know my view of the subject, I'll save myself the trouble of posting it.

	19-02-2002 07:06									#73
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ramo That is certainly not true everywhere. Consider William Lloyd Garrison or John Brown, for instance.

Like I said, my feelings weren't that those in favor of abolition were not in favor of equality of the races. I was just saying that the majority of it (at this time) was political opportunism. And I'm talking about politicians not your average Northerner.

	19-02-2002 07:07									#74
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: I dunno if Berz thinks of himself as "southern" but Kansas definitely ain't typically thought of as "the south"

It's south of here. Plus, Berzerker's a Libertarian, sufficient cause to simply ignore any opinions he forms.

	19-02-2002 07:07									#75
	Put an end to popups!

quote: The difference is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.

So was, effectively, Mein Kampf.

	19-02-2002 07:08									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: You can't have it both ways! If you think it's legal to fight against an law that denies basic human rights if you can't vote for it, than it should be just as acceptable if they recieve support from those that can!

I certainly can have it both ways.
The South had a legal right to secede. The slaves had a moral right to revolt.

However, aggressive war against a neighbor, who has done nothing to you, is never moral, nor were many of the US's actions during the war. Therefore, the US had no moral right to invade the CSA.

I suppose they had a legal right to, but only if they declared war - which they didn't.

quote: I don't say it's illegal. We forced the south to ratify for reentrance into the Union...nothing wrong with that

OK.
Thanks for granting me my argument, by the way - because if secession was illegal, then the South never really seceded, and thus could not have been readmitted, because they never left, and if they never left you can't just force them to vote a certain way on Constitutional amendments.
YOU'RE the one who can't have it both ways

I was just WAITING for someone to make that argument.

quote: This isn't about my feelings on gun control. In fact, I don't see where this applies at all unless you're trying to sneak in an anti-gun control blurb in that one can't fight gun control without guns. What's the point here DF?

Well, what you said is that violent revolt is OK if there is no reasonable chance for changing the law. I voiced my agreement, and asked if, because there is no reasonable chance of abolishing gun control, which is unconstitutional any way you slice it, you would support a violent revolt against it.
Do you? Again, you can't have it both ways

quote: Well I feel he was incorrect in that. His first allegience should have been to his country, the UNITED states of America

I totally disagree.

	19-02-2002 07:11									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: You can't escape this paradox DF...if you claim the CSA is a soverign nation, than accept that they were invaded, defeated, and once again became part of the United States and that the stipulations of the surrender allowed for the LEGAL abolition of slavery. If you think they were not a soverign nation, than they were guilty of treason, and the Union's actions were justified.

Then again, the North never tried to claim that the South actually seceded until they decided to ram Constitutional amendments down the South's throat. They're the ones guilty of logical inconsistencies, not me.

quote: So was, effectively, Mein Kampf.

No it wasn't, and certainly not in the same way the Constitution is.

	19-02-2002 07:14									#78
	Tired of ads?

legality vs. morality is a tough debate. On one hand, if morality trumps the law, then why have law at all? (Ramo and other anarchists I know you don't like law but there is a purpose for it. Trust me.) On the other hand, if the law trumps morality, then what do you do if the law is unjust?

My solution is to comply with the law whenever possible. If you cannot survive while a certain law exists, or you cannot do things that you sincerely feel are essential to your life, go for it! Break that law!

OTOH, if you just want to smoke pot for example, then there are ways to change the law that don't require sabotaging the foundations of our society.

However, this isn't a perfect system as it still mandates a morality higher than law.

	19-02-2002 07:18									#79
	Remove this text

It was the framework for Nazi philosophy. It was certainly comparable in this respect to the Constitution.

But you're missing my point. You were saying that the Constitution must be followed simply because it is the law. Slave revolts were certainly illegal, so why do you support them?

	19-02-2002 07:18									#80
	Put an end to popups!

Of course there's a morality higher than law. It's simply that we agree to follow the law even when we disagree with it in non-fundamental respects.

	19-02-2002 07:21									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I certainly can have it both ways. The South had a legal right to secede. The slaves had a moral right to revolt. However, aggressive war against a neighbor, who has done nothing to you, is never moral, nor were many of the US's actions during the war. Therefore, the US had no moral right to invade the CSA. I suppose they had a legal right to, but only if they declared war - which they didn't.

The North had a moral right to support the overthrow of the south I say the most moral action of the North's war was getting 3 very special amendments passed

And yes, they had a legal right to as well because of two reasons...A) revolts needed to be supressed and B) they had been fired on

quote: OK. Thanks for granting me my argument, by the way - because if secession was illegal, then the South never really seceded, and thus could not have been readmitted, because they never left, and if they never left you can't just force them to vote a certain way on Constitutional amendments.

Hey I'm just refuting you. My feelings are that the South was not a soverign nation, it was part of the United States and involved in an organized revolt. They were defeated. They were 'readmitted' to the Union because they had declared themselves a separate nation, which perhaps they were, but not legally and without soverignty.

quote: YOU'RE the one who can't have it both ways

quote: Well, what you said is that violent revolt is OK if there is no reasonable chance for changing the law. I voiced my agreement, and asked if, because there is no reasonable chance of abolishing gun control, which is unconstitutional any way you slice it, you would support a violent revolt against it. Do you? Again, you can't have it both ways

Again, this is not a debate about gun control. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

However, I will humour you...

I feel that the only injustices that can be justified with violent revolt are those that deny basic human rights (and no, you weren't born with a gun so the right to own a gun is not a basic human right)

However, I support any form of non violent protest to protest ANYTHING that you want to protest. If gun control is passed and you want to organize a giant non violent protest, I will absolutely support your right to do it and commend you for doing it non violently However, if you start a bloody revolt, I'd condem you and support any charges brought up against you (within reason )

Lets not get away from the task at hand, ok?



I totally disagree. [/QUOTE]

	19-02-2002 07:26									#82
	Remove this text

quote: Ramo and other anarchists I know you don't like law but there is a purpose for it. Trust me.

Actually, I do support minimal laws.

	19-02-2002 07:44									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Of course there's a morality higher than law. It's simply that we agree to follow the law even when we disagree with it in non-fundamental respects.

But whose morality do we use?

	19-02-2002 08:09									#84
	Support Apolyton

It is ironic that most of the people defending Lincoln's actions in the civil war decry Bush's assault on civil liberties in the 'War on Terrorism'?

	19-02-2002 08:11									#85
	I thought that was amusing as well, Imran. Support Apolyton

I want my question answered.

	19-02-2002 08:16									#86
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Goingonit But whose morality do we use?

"We" don't use anybody else's morality; we each use our own. Other people are quite free to believe what they want to. I can't change someone else's mind for them; I can, however, defend those principles I believe are right wholeheartedly against others' actions.

	19-02-2002 08:22									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse "We" don't use anybody else's morality; we each use our own. Other people are quite free to believe what they want to. I can't change someone else's mind for them; I can, however, defend those principles I believe are right wholeheartedly against others' actions.

But now we have a double standard! I only have to follow my rules and you only have to follow your rules...it will be the same as having no law at all.

	19-02-2002 08:27									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It is ironic that most of the people defending Lincoln's actions in the civil war decry Bush's assault on civil liberties in the 'War on Terrorism'?

Well, which issues? I fail to see the irony...

A right to a fair and open trial is something we should always strive to uphold. Which of Lincoln's actions is similar to depriving civil liberties?

	19-02-2002 08:27									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

CALVINBALL!

Oooh, society based on that game would be fun .

	19-02-2002 08:28									#90
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Goingonit But now we have a double standard! I only have to follow my rules and you only have to follow your rules...it will be the same as having no law at all.

No...nobody "has" to follow any rules, but disobeying them comes with a price. If I'm in a situation where I need to break the law, then I better be prepared to pay that price.

EDIT: The law keeps us in check; I have a healthy respect for what it means to live in a civil society, but I always reserve the right to break the rules of this society if it's necessary.