Civil War arguments

The Don · #1 12-23-2005, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Union is not one person, it is many people. Are you saying they didn't have rights because they were a group rather than one person?

[/ QUOTE ]

The individuals have rights. The government doesn't. It's that simple.

XxGodJrxX · #2 12-23-2005, 01:16 AM

The government is people. People are the government. How can you not see that?

The Don · #3 12-23-2005, 01:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The government is people. People are the government. How can you not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

"People" are not individuals. Only individuals have rights. Groups of people don't make decisions, individuals within the groups do. Unless 100% of the people agree on something, some individuals' rights are being infringed upon. They (the individuals) are being forced to do something against their will. That is why "people" don't have rights and that is why government doesn't have rights.

XxGodJrxX · #4 12-23-2005, 01:29 AM

Let me start off by saying that I think it is a ridiculous notion that a person has rights, but people don't. But it's okay, I love a challenge.

According to you, governments have no rights. The Confederacy was a new government. Then, it logically follows, that the Confederacy had no rights. So why are you complaining that the Union waged war against them? The Confederates had no rights to life, liberty, or property, ACCORDING TO YOU. Therefore, killing them and taking their liberty and property did not violate any rights.

I'll wait for you to change your definition again, although I don't see how you could. Either the Union had rights, or the Confederacy did not.

The Don · #5 12-23-2005, 01:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Let me start off by saying that I think it is a ridiculous notion that a person has rights, but people don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Explain to me how a group of people can have rights.

[ QUOTE ]

According to you, governments have no rights. The Confederacy was a new government. Then, it logically follows, that the Confederacy had no rights. So why are you complaining that the Union waged war against them? The Confederates had no rights to life, liberty, or property, ACCORDING TO YOU. Therefore, killing them and taking their liberty and property did not violate any rights.

I'll wait for you to change your definition again, although I don't see how you could. Either the Union had rights, or the Confederacy did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Individuals in the Confederacy had rights, and they were infringed upon by the Union government. This is not to say that the Confereracy didn't infringe on the rights of individuals who were citizens of the Union (Fort Sumter comes to mind). The North was just much worse about it.

You need to stop personifying government and groups of people. It is impossible to quantify human action.

BCPVP · #6 12-23-2005, 02:36 AM

I've yet to hear any of the local anarchists explain how the attack on Fort Sumter by the Confederacy doesn't constitute an act of war or explain how the Union was trespassing in FEDERAL forts, presumably built with federal funds by federal troops. While it may not justify the level of violence that occurred because of it, because the South attacked first, I think they lose some of their moral superiority in justifying their secession. If they had waited till the Union struck first, it'd be a different story.

But I'm glad a semi-intelligent discussion has brewed besides the normal bush-lied drivel that litters this board.

BluffTHIS! · #7 12-23-2005, 07:16 AM

Although I've made clear in this thread that I think the North was morally justified in fighting the war solely to free the slaves, and gave a little of the history re Ft. Sumter, the South's argument would go like this:

1) Upon secession, in which South Carolina ceased to be part of the federal union, there could exist no federal property within the boundaries of South Carolina.

2) In consideration of the above, the refusal of Federal troops to vacate installations in South Carolina constituted tresspass and forcible occupation.

3) South Carolina and its southern allies were then justified in using force to remove federal troops and recover property now belonging to South Carolina, the same as if a 3rd country had invaded the US.

SheetWise · #8 12-23-2005, 01:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The government is people. People are the government. How can you not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Under the rules, the governments "just" powers are derived by the consent of the people. Under the rules, there was no consent to the powers the government had assumed. At that point, under the rules, it was no longer a government of the people -- and hasn't been ever since.