 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
David, of what use is being a Nation-State without legal recognition? Legally, it leaves you wide open to people taking over your territory. |
I suppose, but the CSA wasn't recognized essentially because they weren't strong enough - hence the morally repugnant concept of might makes right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
So, to sum up, you follow the ostrich philosophy: we should just bury our heads in the sand and never do anything or affect anyone else because we might possibly do something wrong? |
Well, "doing something" generally involves forcing citizens of both nations to die, hence it is already wrong - so you're right on so far, if you are speaking of responding to aggression or genocide or whatever - and economic sanctions are also wrong since the restrict free trade.
quote:
Except of course when we should, like the one person seceding case. Because then it's legal, and all laws are created equally, whether they be from an elected body or a psychotic dictator. |
As far as we are concerned in the US, all laws in, say, Germany are certainly equal, legally speaking, unless the law violates a Constitution or higher law, but we still have no right to interfere.
quote:
Okay, so you're going to say that's wrong. Why don't you tell us then? What is moral? When does what is legal supersede what is moral? What is legal that "counts?" |
Legal always supercedes moral in terms if what one can and cannot do, but never in terms of what one should and should not do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
 |
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Lonestar,
-So the 13th-15th wouldn't have been ratified if the North didn't force them to be.
|
I bet you that eventually they would have been ratified. I, personally, think Reconstruction was great. From 1866-1876, the South tried democracy. Free and equal rights for blacks. The collpse of the Plantation system.
quote:
-So might makes right, then?
|
If everyone see's a duck...but you're the only one seeing a goose....doesn't logic dictate it's really a duck?
It wasn't a real country!
quote:
-So? It was still forced down their throats against their will.
|
I daresay it wasn't. The Blacks supported all those measures. Influencial people like Longstreet supported the measures. It was only "forced down the throats" of rascists whites who formed posses to prevent blacks from voting.
quote:
-It was self-defense, they were just better at self-defense than the US was at murder.
|
Hey now. The CSA fired first, remember? Using weapons they raided from federal arsenals, I might add.
We can even go back to "Bleedin' Kansas," where, yep, Pro-slavery forces started the fighting first.
"Murdered"? The Union only "Murdered" those who aided and abetted the enemy. By '65 most rebel soldiers had went home, and sure enough, they were not "murdered" by Union forces. "Murder" implies the victem was defenseless. As the average Southerner was more aquainted with a fireman than the Northernor was at the begining of the war., I wouldn't call them "defenseless".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
Ramo,
quote:
The Constitution doesn't specify the procudures to readmit rebelling states into the Union. "Shoving" the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments down the throats of the Soutthern feudal aristocrats was therefore perfectly Constitutional. |
They weren't rebelling States - they legally seceded.
Lonestar,
quote:
I bet you that eventually they would have been ratified. I, personally, think Reconstruction was great. From 1866-1876, the South tried democracy. Free and equal rights for blacks. The collpse of the Plantation system. |
Again, I don't support the concept of democracy in the slightest. It leads to nasty things such as mob rule and socialism.
quote:
If everyone see's a duck...but you're the only one seeing a goose....doesn't logic dictate it's really a duck? |
Unless it's really a goose.
quote:
I daresay it wasn't. The Blacks supported all those measures. Influencial people like Longstreet supported the measures. It was only "forced down the throats" of rascists whites who formed posses to prevent blacks from voting. |
So what if blacks supported the measures? Before such measures were immorally forced in, their opinion was irrelevant.
quote:
Hey now. The CSA fired first, remember? Using weapons they raided from federal arsenals, I might add. |
By both remaining on CSA territory and attempting to resupply those garrisons, the first act of war was committef by the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
|
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Lonestar,
Again, I don't support the concept of democracy in the slightest. It leads to nasty things such as mob rule and socialism.
|
It's the best system out there.
As for Mob rule, that's what we have the electoral College for.
Plus the "Secret Smoke-filled Room conspirators"
quote:
Unless it's really a goose.
|
Only in Mother Goose tales.
quote:
So what if blacks supported the measures? Before such measures were immorally forced in, their opinion was irrelevant. |
I bet Tsar Nicholas said the exact same thing about the Russian peasents for the longest time...
When the make up one fourth the population of your Region, their opinions ARE relavent. And if they were not TREATED as such, I bet we would have had a Marxist revolution in the South by 1917...
quote:
By both remaining on CSA territory and attempting to resupply those garrisons, the first act of war was committef by the US. |
And.....who payed for, and built those forts? And those weapons that were "liberated" from Federal arsenals? Why, the Federal Government! As most Federal Income at the time was coming from tariffs, and most trade was coming through the breat Northern Port cities, I think the Union had a tincy-wincy more legal claim to those forts than the Rebels did.
Which is moot, as the Federal Government was (and is) the only recognized National Goverment between Canada and Mexico...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
DD,
quote:
David: Out of genuine curiosity, would you say that the CSA's practice of slavery was both a moral wrong and the knife with which they slit thier own throats because it alienated them from potential European allies? |
Yes, although not winning on US soil alsoo alienated the CSA.
GP,
quote:
Floyd, according to your tortured logic, Germany had no right to force it's citizens to fight the US. The US had not attacked Germany. We merely traded or gave items as we saw fit...and protected our flagged ships. |
You're right, Germany had no moral right either - but we were protecting BRITISH ships.
quote:
OH and the timing like sucks!! Right after Pearl Harbor. SUre makes it seem like one more unprovoked attack than a response to your bogus "acts of war"...which aren't "extremist libertarian acts of war"! |
True - it had more to do with Pearl Harbor than anything else, but we still committed our own acts of war first.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
Ramo,
quote:
What's the difference? The Constitution doesn't say that the US must automatically accept seceding states back into the Union. The North had its say, and it was perfectly legal. |
The States didn't want to come back.
quote:
There are no procedures for secession in the Constitution. |
10th Amendment
Lonestar,
quote:
It's the best system out there. |
Wrong, the Constitution set up the best system.
quote:
Only in Mother Goose tales. |
Or reality.
quote:
I bet Tsar Nicholas said the exact same thing about the Russian peasents for the longest time...
When the make up one fourth the population of your Region, their opinions ARE relavent. And if they were not TREATED as such, I bet we would have had a Marxist revolution in the South by 1917... |
Not relevant according to the Constitution.
quote:
And.....who payed for, and built those forts? And those weapons that were "liberated" from Federal arsenals? Why, the Federal Government! As most Federal Income at the time was coming from tariffs, and most trade was coming through the breat Northern Port cities, I think the Union had a tincy-wincy more legal claim to those forts than the Rebels did. |
They were regardless on CSA soil - similar to how if we refuse to abandon an embassy after being ordered out, that country can forcibly take the embassy and kick us out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
I was hoping for a bit more. So, let me get this straight: the United States couldn't attack the CSA because by your logic it wasn't legal since they "genuinely seceded," but they should have because slavery is horrible morally? |
No, because what is more immoral than slavery is conscription and wars of aggression.
quote:
What I want to know is, what do you think is moral? You apperantly seem to think that anything remotely involving death is immoral. You used to cloak it with talk about free choice and other Libertariany stuff, but not anymore, seemingly. Could you expound on this a bit more? What's your hiearchy of morality? And from your little statement, should we do things we should do but can't? (yes that makes no sense, but I'm using what you said) |
I'm not sure I understand - I will say the biggest moral wrong, bar none, is forcing someone to die for a cause.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
|
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Wrong, the Constitution set up the best system.
|
Yep. A representitive Democracy. Fortunatly, Madison set up this thing that allows the constitution to amended as time progressed. Gee, what were they called? Oh yeah, Amendments.
Very Rarely, and never on the scale you're talking.
quote:
Not relevant according to the Constitution.
|
So...are you saying that we should have continued to oppress people and what for them to revolt and cause chaos? That would be a failure of...waddya call it, "Protection against all foes, foreign or domestic".
Hmm...if the Rebels didn't constitute a domestic foe, I don't know what does.
quote:
They were regardless on CSA soil - similar to how if we refuse to abandon an embassy after being ordered out, that country can forcibly take the embassy and kick us out. |
There's a slight difference of one embassy and dozens of Forts the North payed for. Don't recall any Confederate politician calling for riembursement for the North to vacate 'em. Or, calling to hand over the thousands of muskets and rifles in Federal arsenals in the south...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OldWarrior_42
|
|
quote:
similar to how if we refuse to abandon an embassy after being ordered out |
Incorrect. You build an embassy on some other country's land with their permission. If they tell you to leave, you have no right to stay , for you do not own that land or have any say in the way that land is governed.
In the US, the land in the south belonged to the federal govt... before (Stressing before) the south ever decided to want to become a sovereign nation. That was federal land and it was being appropriated by the South. You can look it up yourself as I wish to not have to provide links for every bit of information I have on what is known as "The Civil War".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:18
|
|
My undergrad major is History, and I plan to go to graduate school after I graduate. Then I plan to someday be a professor, and teach undergrad college students U.S. history.
I have a particular interest in United State's history from 1850's through the 1880's.
Westward expansion, organization of new territory, and the admission of new states was intertwined with the issue of the expansion or constriction of slavery in antebellum United States.
Slavery became the central issue throughout the antebellum era, and by the time the Civil War erupted, slavery's fate was sealed. It became abolished through the act of war, and emancipation.
The southern politicians were concerned with not being able to maintain power in a majoritarian government of the United States, took the route of secession. And thus, their institution of slavery was becoming more threatened.
I have also read one book, in which the historian argued that the seccessionists were in the minority, and forced this decision on the majority Southerners. Either secede from the Union, or if you remain in the Union, and betray your native Southern state. I wish I can recall the book's title and author. I will look at my list, and let you know what source it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
No, I'm suggesting abolishing slavery was wrong because:
-The South didn't want to
-The sovereign CSA didn't want to
-The 13th Amendment was forced down the throats of Southerners, who didn't get a valid, uncoerced vote on it
-The US murdered hundreds of thousands of CSA soldiers in order to do it |
I'm what these bluebelly Yankee-lovin revisionists call a "Southern revisionist"
Let's get one point straight - you can shout "might makes right" until you're blue in the face (or the belly), but that simply justifies every tyrant that ever came down the pike. Including such fine demonstrations of Yankee justice as the response to Shay's and Dorr's rebellions.
All that said, David - you are wrong on a number of key points. Mostly involving this concept of consistency. A problem the Yankee apologists also have in abundance - because they both deny the right of secession, then support the unconstitutional means used to deal with secession and the southern states and citizens. The southern consistency issue is to claim the right of secession, thereby repudiating the mutual obligations under the Constitution, while whining about unconstitutional Yankee actions. Both sides try to have it both ways, and both are wrong.
The desires of the south with respect to abolition are irrelevant - slavery was not abolished until the sovereign CSA was in fact conquered and effectively under martial law.
The 13th Amendment was passed quite legally. Get over it. When we seceded from the Union, we rescinded those bonds and obligations between our sovereign states and the Yankee states, and with the Federal government. We also rescinded any rights under the Constitution.
When we were conquered four years later - we were a conquered nation under foreign military occupation, with absolutely no rights to claim that we were entitled to restoration of our position within the union to the status quo ante - the Yankees could do pretty much anything they wanted. Their big problem with consistency is justifying acts such as Reconstruction and martial law, while claiming that secession was never valid in the first place.
CSA troops murdered? We stood up and traded steel and lead with the best the Yankees could throw at us - and for all their advantage in numbers and resources, we made 'em earn every yard of territory. Wasn't murder, it was war.
The short term result of the War of Yankee Aggression was the betrayal of the basis of government created by the founding fathers. The long term result - in the emancipation of millions of slaves, the eventual prosperity of the entire nation, including the south, and the freedom from European geopolitical interference which would have resulted with a weak CSA and a defeated, hostile, weaker US, shows that the historical result was the best one for all parties. Yep, you heard right, coming from a diehard Confederate sympathizer. Sometimes the "right" cause, if successful, would have led to the wrong result. And this was one of those times.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-03-2002 09:12
|