Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds good to me. What if Thomas Jefferson had signed a piece of paper that said "In the year 2006, slickpoppa will pay pvn $3,000,000 per day" - do you think you should be held to that? Why is the constitution any different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thankfully a piece of paper declaring that I need to pay you $3,000,000 is a bill of attainder, which would be prohibited by the Constutition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't subjecting you to the constitution similarly imposing punishment on you? The constitution is unconstitutional! Beautiful, I'll have to add this to my bag.

[ QUOTE ]
But more to the point, it would be nice for each individual if he had the right to decide that a particular form of government coercion were unjust and declare immunity from it. But obviously such a system would never work.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the system would work fine. It just wouldn't work in the way it does now, or the way you want it to.

[ QUOTE ]
If everyone could just opt out of whatever laws they wanted to, then laws would be essentially useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some things you can't opt out of. You can't opt-out in any way that lets you violate others' rights. Any law that violates rights instead of protects them *should* be nullified anyway, so this is a win-win situation.

[ QUOTE ]
From reading your earlier posts, it sounds like that is what you want--no laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nearly, but not quite. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, those are pretty good laws - and self-evident ones, when you observe and respect human rights.

Things like "thou shall pay your taxes" and "thou shall surrender thine property to the authorities upon demand" just don't have the same ring to them. Get rid of them.

[ QUOTE ]
If you really want to have that argument, then that is the topic of another thread. This thread is about the South seceding from the Union. Even the people in the South who seceded from the Union were not envisioning no government at all after they were successful in seceding.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, the confederacy was statist, and therefore flawed.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
I never consensted to any law that prohibits me from killing, stealing, and raping random women. Perhaps I am not bound by those laws since I never signed a piece of paper where I agreed to such restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have a right to violate others' rights. That's the whole point - nobody has a right to *impose* upon *you*. Similarly, you have no right to impose murder or rape upon another. Your argument is exactly my argument, though you get it backwards.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If 3 people are on an island and one wants to escape, do the other two have the right to prevent him because they won a majority vote? Do they have the right to kill him when he makes his attempt? All because their grandparents signed an agreement stating that no man is allowed to escape from the island without the consent of the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a bad analogy. The North did not prevent the South from leaving the island. If everyone in the South wanted to pick up and move to Mexico, they certainly could have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? The southerners, not the US government, owned the land. It seems like you are implying that the government had rights to the land because they ruled over it.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
I never consensted to any law that prohibits me from killing, stealing, and raping random women. Perhaps I am not bound by those laws since I never signed a piece of paper where I agreed to such restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you seem to be conflating law and government (namely the necessity of the State to deem something "illegal"). Some laws are natural; there is a basic principle of property rights, which is logically consistent with human nature.

Read about it here.

Oh yeah, I am still waiting for a decent justification for the "two wrongs make a right" argument (slavery and death in order to end slavery). Additionally, I would like to know why popular opinion seems to believe that it was worth 600,000 lives in order to "preserve the union."

Athenian Democracy circa Pericles\' time
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think everyone born in the United States should have to sign onto the Constitution before it applies to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

And to me too.

In fact, it has been my personal conviction that being the free citizen of a polity should be a matter of choice and not of privilege or mandate. People who reach a certain pre-determined age should be allowed to choose, on an all-or-nothing basis, whether or not to accept the polity's laws and rules. It goes without saying that this would also mean accepting a number of obligations, such as taking up arms to defend the polity.

Of course, as soon as the people become citizens, they will have, like every other citizen, the right not just to change the government and the people's representation in it, but to question or try to change the very rules and laws of the polity!

Re: Athenian Democracy circa Pericles\' time
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think everyone born in the United States should have to sign onto the Constitution before it applies to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

And to me too.

In fact, it has been my personal conviction that being the free citizen of a polity should be a matter of choice and not of privilege or mandate. People who reach a certain pre-determined age should be allowed to choose, on an all-or-nothing basis, whether or not to accept the polity's laws and rules. It goes without saying that this would also mean accepting a number of obligations, such as taking up arms to defend the polity.

Of course, as soon as the people become citizens, they will have, like every other citizen, the right not just to change the government and the people's representation in it, but to question or try to change the very rules and laws of the polity!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you just like saying "polity."

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
So they lie so that they can accomplish good? If their secret agenda is so great, why do they have to lie about it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not always lies. Many times it is. Sometimes it's standard political equivocation. And, obviously, it wouldn't be wise to come out and say he'd free the slaves. I don't know whether or not you're insinuating that freeing the slaves might not be a good cause, but it's something the south definitely didn't want. I don't really want to argue about the honesty and ethics in politics as that's just a red herring. In this specific instance, I'm willing to give Lincoln the benefit of the doubt, because of all I've read about him, that he genuinely wanted slavery ended, and it would've been a [censored] move to come out and say it. Mincing words with the south was a more politic way of handling the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Lincoln had determined for himself that one day slavery would be outlawed, he wouldn't come out guns blazing and free every slave, especially right after states began to secede. Doing so would basically make it impossible to end the war without a bloody, drawn out battle and military surrender.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Isn't that exactly what happened? Or is 600,000 dead not "bloody" in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on now. If you really need me to spell it out I will, but I know you're smart enough to figure out what I'm implying. He didn't want a long battle, so he didn't free the slaves right away. Once he saw that the battle couldn't be ended diplomatically he pulled out all the stops.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Emancipation Proclamation was a political as well as military decision, which of course furthered his own goal (in my opinion) of freeing slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got the first part right. The political goal was to gain foreign support for the union (which succeeded), and therefore to end any possibility of foreign assistance to the confederacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was one reason. I'm not going to argue that Lincoln handled the slave situation the best way he could, and in the end it looked a little self-serving for the Union. But you can't really deny the guy had a place in his heart for freeing slaves.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]

You don't have a right to violate others' rights. That's the whole point - nobody has a right to *impose* upon *you*. Similarly, you have no right to impose murder or rape upon another. Your argument is exactly my argument, though you get it backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]



Okay, then, where do rights come from? The Lockian argument is that there are natural rights to life, liberty, and property, but I do not believe that. It seems to me that we would first have to agree that there are such rights to begin with, and I do not agree that there is. If I do not agree that the rights to life, liberty, and property are actually natural, then how can your concept of "rights" stop me from taking your life, liberty, or property?

I did not read the Liberterian Creed, but by the sound of the don's post, it sounds like it is a Lockian argument.

I am, of course, speaking hypothetically. I am not a Lockian, but I will still use his principles againt you when it serves my interests [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Civil War arguments
 

It is not morally justifiable to have a civil war over slavery unless slaves were being slaughtered themselves, which they were not.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

I don't think the Civil War was about ending slavery, it was about saving the union. You're framing the question in such a way so that no answer can satisfy you. If instead of 600,000 deaths, there were only a hundred, you will still be against it. You will always be against it because you feel that it was wrong, and that is fine. Lincoln, and most people, do not feel that it is wrong. Since we do not feel that it is wrong, then the cost was worth it, especially in hindsight.

I think that when one talks about wars, preconceived notions of right and wrong grounded in morality are moot. A more utilitarian approach is more useful in my opinion. From a utilitarian point of view, it was in the Union's best interest to keep the south in the United States. I highly doubt that the United States would be as powerful as it is now if it had not preserved the union.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe so much sympathy is given to a group of rebels that chose to wage war on our country. Disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just laughable. Wage war? The South was attacked. Even after they were attacked, the South fought an almost entirely defensive war.

Re: Athenian Democracy circa Pericles\' time
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think everyone born in the United States should have to sign onto the Constitution before it applies to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

And to me too.

In fact, it has been my personal conviction that being the free citizen of a polity should be a matter of choice and not of privilege or mandate. People who reach a certain pre-determined age should be allowed to choose, on an all-or-nothing basis, whether or not to accept the polity's laws and rules. It goes without saying that this would also mean accepting a number of obligations, such as taking up arms to defend the polity.

Of course, as soon as the people become citizens, they will have, like every other citizen, the right not just to change the government and the people's representation in it, but to question or try to change the very rules and laws of the polity!

[/ QUOTE ]

It's kind of amazing that this is the argument for how things "should" be... I'm pretty sure that this is how things are. By sticking around, ie, not emigrating, you are accepting the polity's laws and rules. It's usually referred to as a tacit choice, or an implied choice.

What you described in your last sentence is what people normally call taking part in free speech/assembly/association and voting.

The fact that so many people yern for a feeling of citizenship indicates to me two things (that aren't necessarily mutually exclusive) the reason for this I don't really have room to spell out.

1) Individualism in America (for whatever reason) has become simply become a justification for selfishness. People routinely mistake freedom and liberty with autonomy and, and they seem to think that they should be free to take from the common weal without being bound to contribute.

2)The "Democratic" nature of America and Americans is really heading towards exitinction.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is not morally justifiable to have a civil war over slavery unless slaves were being slaughtered themselves, which they were not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know you are making an argument according to catholic teachings on just war, and that the means/casualties must be proportionate to the injustice to be fought over. But the enslavement of human beings in fact slaughters their dignity as children of God. Furthermore, defrauding a laborer of his just wages, which is certainly the case here, is one of the sins that "cries out to heaven for vengence".

And you might read my earlier posts in this thread with quotes by Lincoln that involve God's judgement on slavery.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Having 600,000 good men killed over perceived unjust wages and "human dignity" is still not justifiable. This is especially in light of the fact that slavery around the world was in its dying stages. Furthermore, the imprudent war of Northern aggression, a violation of the Constitution led to many other great evils such as:

- the destruction of a morally superior agricultural society by a morally inferior industrialized society

- a modern conception and undertaking of total war as shown by Sherman's march

- plus the rise of racist organizations such as the KKK post war

The sum total of the evil effect that came out of the Civil War is completely disproportionate to any good that came out of it. This was shrewdly perceived by Pope Pius IX who recognized the Confederacy for the legitimate government that it was.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
Having 600,000 good men killed over perceived unjust wages and "human dignity" is still not justifiable. This is especially in light of the fact that slavery around the world was in its dying stages. Furthermore, the imprudent war of Northern aggression, a violation of the Constitution led to many other great evils such as:

- the destruction of a morally superior agricultural society by a morally inferior industrialized society

- a modern conception and undertaking of total war as shown by Sherman's march

- plus the rise of racist organizations such as the KKK post war

The sum total of the evil effect that came out of the Civil War is completely disproportionate to any good that came out of it. This was shrewdly perceived by Pope Pius IX who recognized the Confederacy for the legitimate government that it was.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Yeah, a very funny one. Either contribute of stick your head back in your ass.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

I was serious.... and I still don't know.... was it a joke?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
From a utilitarian point of view, it was in the Union's best interest to keep the south in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt that the United States would be as powerful as it is now if it had not preserved the union.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, okay... that's why. So you think that a powerful government is good for the utility of the people. For the moment, I will assume that interpersonal utility comparisions are feasible and that the concept of "ultilitarianism" has validity. You appear to be aware that the Civil War set the precedent for "big government." This means state forced involuntary servitude (conscription), an increase in coercive theft of property (taxes), and the many ineffecient government monopolies (run by bureaucracies). So you are telling me that society is better off because of these things? Death induced by slavery, extortion of funds, and the uniformity and inefficiency of government monopoly are REALLY good for society.

Now, given that it is a fact that interpersonal utility comparisions are not possible (humans are not homogenous)... imagine these things from the perspective of the individual?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Peter, you are really losing your grip. You place 600,000 dead versus the millions enslaved and who also often were treated harshly or killed at the whim of their owners. You posit that an agricultural society is morally superior (WTF?). And you attribute the rise of the KKK which oppressed and lynched blacks as an evil worse than the enslavement of those black slaves. All this shows that your value system and anlystical skills are in need of adjustment.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You don't have a right to violate others' rights. That's the whole point - nobody has a right to *impose* upon *you*. Similarly, you have no right to impose murder or rape upon another. Your argument is exactly my argument, though you get it backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]



Okay, then, where do rights come from? The Lockian argument is that there are natural rights to life, liberty, and property, but I do not believe that. It seems to me that we would first have to agree that there are such rights to begin with, and I do not agree that there is. If I do not agree that the rights to life, liberty, and property are actually natural, then how can your concept of "rights" stop me from taking your life, liberty, or property?

I did not read the Liberterian Creed, but by the sound of the don's post, it sounds like it is a Lockian argument.

I am, of course, speaking hypothetically. I am not a Lockian, but I will still use his principles againt you when it serves my interests [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Please read the Rothbard chapter. He logically explains why property rights are consistent with human nature and the reality of human existence. I mean, expand upon the alternative--the right of every human to exert force on other--and see where that leads.

You assert that without formal law, everyone would start using force because there would be no state to prevent them. It is only rational to assume that by using force, one expects force to be used on them in return. Therefore, in every thread you seem to imply that humans want force to be exerted upon them. I contend that this is not the case. Some people will always choose to use force, regardless of the presence of the state. The other people, who are against this use of force, will demand restitution against those who use it. You seem to be implying that the former will overwhelm the latter. I contend that this is contradictory to human nature.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
Peter, you are really losing your grip. You place 600,000 dead versus the millions enslaved and who also often were treated harshly or killed at the whim of their owners. You posit that an agricultural society is morally superior (WTF?). And you attribute the rise of the KKK which oppressed and lynched blacks as an evil worse than the enslavement of those black slaves. All this shows that your value system and anlystical skills are in need of adjustment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously his argument is a poor one...

Still, can you defend the "two wrongs make a right" case? That being mass enslavement (and, of course, death) through consciption, as a means of abolishing the other people's enslavement.

Again, I don't seem to understand why you think America is different than other places in the world, where slavery ended peacefully. It merely requires a paradigm shift (and even a minor one is likely to end such an egregious practice).

Re: Civil War arguments
 

I didn't say that people want force used on them, but that people will use force against others out of necessity. I would contend that human nature is the same as every other animal and plant in the world. The most important thing to something that is living, is to preserve itself. Look at the animals in the wild, they kill each other constantly because they feel that it would be better for them. I look out my window, and I see ducks that live in a large group, fight all the time because of food and sex.

I agree that it is in our interests to not kill each other, but without anything to prevent us, we will. You say that the majority will punish the minority that uses force, but they will do so by using force. It is an endless cycle that I do not think will stop without any agreement. An agreement to not use force, and punish those that do, is government.

I think we're going off-topic here, so lets get back to the Civil War [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Civil War arguments
 

- How many slaves were simply murdered at the whim of their owners?

- If you use Catholic morality as a basis for argument, which you always do, then surely you should be aware of the Catholic land movement and moral inferiority of an industrial state, the same type of industrial state whose injustices lead to communism

- the historical KKK is merely an inordinate response to the injustices legitimately felt by southerners, it would not exist today of those grievances were handled correctly

- there is no response to the total war concept initiated by the North on the South, a modern American military precedent making its way felt all the way to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

- And just the whole notion of being able to declare war on nations whom you feel morally superior over, despite the fact that you are breaking moral law itself in doing so: a modern example being the invasion of Iraq.

Here's a hypothetical question: if Russia were to outlaw abortion, and then nuke parts of the US and invade others because abortion here is legal, whose side would you fight on?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Conscription is no less valid an action for a nation to take in this example than if it were under attack from another. The federal government was protecting its black citizens.

And as I have said before, only if seccession had not happened was there a reasonable chance of slavery being abolished. With the South left to itself, there was no reasonable such expectation because of the political dominance of the slave owning aristocracy and the likelihood that even poorer non-slave owning southerners would not relish the prospect of so many blacks being freed (KKK after the war shows this).

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]

- there is no response to the total war concept initiated by the North on the South, a modern American military precedent making its way felt all the way to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki


[/ QUOTE ]

Total War is really nothing new...read the Herodotus... and to blame Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the civil war is quite a stretch.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

The catholic land movement, despite being enthusiastically written about by Belloc, did not have its core principles endorsed as doctrine by the church. Despite their good inentions, there was an element of Ludditeism in their beliefs. This is not pertinent to the civil war discussion.

There was no excuse for the KKK and it is disgusting to justify under the guise of the wrongs southerners felt at being made to free the slaves and pay the price for not doing so voluntarily.

The specific tactics used by the Nothern military have nothing to do with their justification for going to war. And Sherman's march burned a path through the Carolinas and Georgia, but he did not slaughter all the southern civilians he encountered.

I'm not going to respond to that hypothetical question because it the same logic used by those misguided people who bomb abortion clinics and is not applicable to this discussion.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Supposedly one of the reasons that Jefferson Davis was never brought to trial on treason charges (he was ultimately released from imprisonment after an indictment) was that the issue of secession and it's legality would have been used as a defense by Davis and the government didn't have a good legal argument as to why secession was illegal. The post Civil War US government just didn't want to go there.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

From what I remember, the main reason Davis was not prosecuted is that he had the support of prominent northerners like Horace Greeley who helped post his bail because they felt he was being singled out unfairly since there were so many others also instrumental in bringing about secession who were not similarly being pursued.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
Machineguns, bomber planes, and tanks give people the right to do anything they want.

[/ QUOTE ]
The ability. Not the right.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

If rights are not synonymous with abilities, then what ARE they? You may not use a protractor to answer this question.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Machineguns, bomber planes, and tanks give people the right to do anything they want.

[/ QUOTE ]
The ability. Not the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might makes right. I thought we established that [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Civil War arguments
 

I knew I'd convince somebody [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
If rights are not synonymous with abilities, then what ARE they? You may not use a protractor to answer this question.

[/ QUOTE ]

A right is something a person enjoys without the coercion of others. Self-ownership is a right. Property derived from labor or homesteading is a right. Consensual, voluntary exchange is a right. These are all natural.

"Man has the right to exert force if he is more powerful than another man."

This is what you are saying. Logically expand from there and see where you end up.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Anybody can exert force without being coerced into doing so.
So by your definition, is killing a right?

If it is not, can't any act of force be declared a right because of self-defense, national security, etc?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody can exert force without being coerced into doing so.
So by your definition, is killing a right?

If it is not, can't any act of force be declared a right because of self-defense, national security, etc?

[/ QUOTE ]

The acceptable use of force is in defense of one's property (life, autonomy, possesions).

Re: Civil War arguments
 

[ QUOTE ]

The acceptable use of force is in defense of one's property (life, autonomy, possesions).

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Now, the confederacy took the Union's property by taking its territory. How is it that the Union was not defending its property?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Total war in modern times was unprecedented. To use ancient examples to justify barbarism is silly. The Civil war and its deployment of new technologies was keenly observed by European powers and adopted. WWI and WW2 are well known to have deployed this military strategy. It is the Civil War which made them "acceptable" or inevitable in society.

Re: Civil War arguments
 

One does not have to move to the land to figure the moral inferiority experienced in an industrial city.

The war and abortion example is very pertinent to the discussion, because you try to justify war on the South because of a moral stance on slavery.

I specifically used the example of a foreign nation which has legitimate authority in itself to declare wars, and not the doings of a lone perpetrator blowing up abortion clinics so we may fall under the principles of a just war.

Now the Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is murder, pure and simple. And the degree that it is occuring today is a slaughter beyond compare in history. Does a foreign nation have a right to start nuking and invading the United States to stop this evil, and which side would you be on?

Re: Civil War arguments
 

Peter, you are historically and militarily misinformed if you believe that other than Sherman's march through a limited area of the South, anything like total war took place in the Civil War, i.e. involving targeting the civilian population and centers of economic production (ok add in the naval blocade). There were 3 things that contributed to the bloodiness of the Civil War:

1) The Minet Ball
2) Field Fortifications
3) Stupid Generalship.

And regarding #3, this includes Lee and Grant IMO. If either or both Stonewall Jackson or Sherman had been in charge of their respective sides' military operations, then the war would have ended sooner.