The Mythical Lincoln

[David Floyd]

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.

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.

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.

[orange]

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!

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!

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!

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.

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.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

[orange]

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

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

[David Floyd]

orange,

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.

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

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?

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.

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

[David Floyd]

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.

[Ramo]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[David Floyd]

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.

[orange]

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!

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

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?

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

[orange]

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.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

[orange]

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.

[KrazyHorse]

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.

[Ramo]

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

So was, effectively, Mein Kampf.