The Mythical Lincoln

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So if someone is a racist, that's okay now? Hmmm...

Planning to post an article detailing the failings of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington then, are you? Looking forward to it!

Jackass.

[Ecthy]

Americans trolling each other, what an opportunity...

Great article

EU!

[David Floyd]

Consider it annexation of territory then.

That doesn't make it any more Constitutional - and besides, it was not a willing annexation by the South, so even if you use that argument it won't work on that basis.

Do we judge by thoughts or deeds? Lincoln, whether he believed himself or not, managed to bring about the greatest change to the United States since the revolution. Where would we be without abolition?

I suppose the ends justify the means then.

So it was OK for the US to pretty much wipe out the Indians, because hell, where would the world be without the US to help them in the world wars, eh?

You people who are so protective of the south also forget one thing - if popular soverignty was really the case, and if the southern states were really upholding the liberty of its people, than why did the majority of people in the south (the slaves ) not have the ability to vote? After all, they're people too, why not have them vote? Oh that's right, the south has an ugly side to it as well that extends before and LONG after the civil war and reconstruction ended.

They were not citizens, and were not recognized as such by either the United States or Confederate Constitutions.
They were slaves, and while that is wrong, they did not have the right to vote in federal elections because of the US Constitution, and the individual states had the power to grant them voting rights within that state only - NONE of which did at the time.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That doesn't make it any more Constitutional - and besides, it was not a willing annexation by the South, so even if you use that argument it won't work on that basis.

I'm not saying it was constitutional or not, I'm saying you lost - get over it.

I suppose the ends justify the means then.

In some cases, it does.

So it was OK for the US to pretty much wipe out the Indians, because hell, where would the world be without the US to help them in the world wars, eh?

Not the same thing

They were not citizens, and were not recognized as such by either the United States or Confederate Constitutions.
They were slaves, and while that is wrong, they did not have the right to vote in federal elections because of the US Constitution, and the individual states had the power to grant them voting rights within that state only - NONE of which did at the time.

One could argue that slavery was just as unconstitutional as the north ignoring the 'popular soverignty' of the south

[mactbone]

So David, when are you going to secede? Will you and Lonestar have friendly relations between your seperate countries?

[David Floyd]

I'm not saying it was constitutional or not, I'm saying you lost - get over it.

So you don't dispute the fact that the North's war effort and related things were unconstitutional, then?

In some cases, it does.

Yeah? Name one. Because that philosophy is, IMO, morally reprehensible.

Not the same thing

Sure it is. It's another case of the end justifying the means, right?

One could argue that slavery was just as unconstitutional as the north ignoring the 'popular soverignty' of the south

No one couldn't. Slavery was a State Right under the 10th Amendment

So David, when are you going to secede? Will you and Lonestar have friendly relations between your seperate countries?

Well, I certainly wouldn't object to Texas seceding

[mactbone]

You know what's funny. Texas was independent, then asked to join the US. All the territories, eventually had a large enough population to become states, something they had wanted to do since they were designated territories. Then the wierd deal with Hawaii, where the US gave it back to the Queen for awhile, until it too finally became a state.

[David Floyd]

How interesting.

Not sure how it's relevant though

[mactbone]

Texans want to be extremely independent, yet, at one point, they ASKED to be in the US. Ironic isn't it?

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So you don't dispute the fact that the North's war effort and related things were unconstitutional, then?

did you read it? I said....

I'm not saying it was constitutional or not, I'm saying you lost - get over it.

Yeah? Name one. Because that philosophy is, IMO, morally reprehensible.

If you kill one person to save 100 lives

Sure it is. It's another case of the end justifying the means, right?

No, it's different than a part of the nation seceeding than tribes being assimilated into the nation. I'm not saying it was right, I'm just saying there are two different scenarios and you can't compare them as the same.

No one couldn't. Slavery was a State Right under the 10th Amendment

Look, lets not make this another 10 page State's rights issue. Because your logic on that will always seem flawed to me. You can't specify where soverignty begins and ends, you say it's ok at the state level but not at the local level, and certianly not at the federal level. Well that logic doesn't jive in life.

Well, I certainly wouldn't object to Texas seceding

Good, then we can invade your asses again

[David Floyd]

If you kill one person to save 100 lives

So if you know for a fact that 100 people will die, unless you kill a random person on the street who's done nothing to you, killing that person is OK?
What if that person is you? Does someone have the right to take your life, without asking you first?
I say no, under no circumstances.

No, it's different than a part of the nation seceeding than tribes being assimilated into the nation. I'm not saying it was right, I'm just saying there are two different scenarios and you can't compare them as the same.

Of course they're different, but you can make an "end justifies the means" argument for each one.

Look, lets not make this another 10 page State's rights issue. Because your logic on that will always seem flawed to me. You can't specify where soverignty begins and ends, you say it's ok at the state level but not at the local level, and certianly not at the federal level. Well that logic doesn't jive in life.

Lookit. Local rights, or whatever, aren't even relevant, because those are set out in State Constitution.
The difference between State and Federal power, though, is CLEARLY defined in the 10th Amendment. The States can do ANYTHING not expressly prohibited them.
However, since the federal government has no such amendment granting it a blanket power of being able to do everything not prohibited, it must be that the federal government can only do what is expressly GRANTED in Article 1 Section 8, and a coupla other places in the Constitution.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by David Floyd
How interesting.

Not sure how it's relevant though

Frankly, as long as we're talking about relevance, anything posted at Newsmax, by yet another "Magnolia Myth" Southern sympathizer with an axe to grind, has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to reality.

[David Floyd]

Good, then we can invade your asses again

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So if you know for a fact that 100 people will die, unless you kill a random person on the street who's done nothing to you, killing that person is OK?

What if that person is you? Does someone have the right to take your life, without asking you first?
I say no, under no circumstances.

Again, different scenario different issue.

If a guy has on a bomb and is about to walk into a school, and you've got the shot - you take the shot. Is it murder - maybe so...but you've just saved many many lives.

There would be no issue where you would have prior knowledge that some random person's existance would be the downfall of many...so unless you want to bring time travel into this debate, I don't see how it's relevant.

Of course they're different, but you can make an "end justifies the means" argument for each one.

Not with one broad brush you can't.

Lookit. Local rights, or whatever, aren't even relevant, because those are set out in State Constitution.

They're relevant on principle. If you can say that Federal government has no right to tell states what to do, than I ask you what right do states have to tell local government what to do, or local government to tell individuals what they can and can't do. Where does it end DF? Your logic gives states way to much power, and it just won't work in a nation like ours. We can't have 50 different voices arguing about certain issues and each one having a different opinion. Sometimes you've gotta have an overlying authority to listen to them all and make the right choice. That's what representative democracy is all about. Sorry states don't always get their way, that's just how it works...but we're better off because of it. Maybe that's another ends justifying means argument, but I don't care, because once again this is something I support. The Constituion was written when the biggest states were New York and North Carolina, and when the nation was the eastern seaboard and nothing more, so have some flexibility when it comes to these issues.

The difference between State and Federal power, though, is CLEARLY defined in the 10th Amendment. The States can do ANYTHING not expressly prohibited them.

See above

However, since the federal government has no such amendment granting it a blanket power of being able to do everything not prohibited, it must be that the federal government can only do what is expressly GRANTED in Article 1 Section 8, and a coupla other places in the Constitution.

Oh boy, back to the Constitution again...

[David Floyd]

Again, different scenario different issue.

If a guy has on a bomb and is about to walk into a school, and you've got the shot - you take the shot. Is it murder - maybe so...but you've just saved many many lives.

There would be no issue where you would have prior knowledge that some random person's existance would be the downfall of many...so unless you want to bring time travel into this debate, I don't see how it's relevant.

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.

Not with one broad brush you can't.

The argument is pretty much the same.

They're relevant on principle. If you can say that Federal government has no right to tell states what to do, than I ask you what right do states have to tell local government what to do, or local government to tell individuals what they can and can't do. Where does it end DF? Your logic gives states way to much power, and it just won't work in a nation like ours. We can't have 50 different voices arguing about certain issues and each one having a different opinion. Sometimes you've gotta have an overlying authority to listen to them all and make the right choice. That's what representative democracy is all about. Sorry states don't always get their way, that's just how it works...but we're better off because of it. Maybe that's another ends justifying means argument, but I don't care, because once again this is something I support. The Constituion was written when the biggest states were New York and North Carolina, and when the nation was the eastern seaboard and nothing more, so have some flexibility when it comes to these issues.

You don't like how the Constitution is written? Fine, there's a method to change it.

See above

See above.

Oh boy, back to the Constitution again...

Yep, and it's only the most important document in American government.