Announcement

**Ramo** · March 22, 2002, 00:12

Another one of those "states - only things I call states though - are magical organizations that for some odd reason have the right do whatever they want, except for interfering with other states" debate.

**DinoDoc** · March 22, 2002, 00:14

David, of what use is being a Nation-State without legal recognition? Legally, it leaves you wide open to people taking over your territory.

**David Floyd** · March 22, 2002, 00:14

Another one of those "states - only things I call states though - are magical organizations that for some odd reason have the right do whatever they want, except for interfering with other states" debate.

Agree or not, it's all in the Constitution

**faded glory** · March 22, 2002, 00:14

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Who exactly is revising the term? First I've heard of it...

In the south. They call it "The war of Northern aggression".I lived there when I was younger. Tho "Civil War"in the text books...wheny you talked about it. You refered to it as that.

**SnowFire** · March 22, 2002, 00:15

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? 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.

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?"

**David Floyd** · March 22, 2002, 00:15

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** · March 22, 2002, 00:20

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.

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.

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.

**Ramo** · March 22, 2002, 00:21

Agree or not, it's all in the Constitution

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.

Even if the 14th was a little shadier than normal, SCOTUS said otherwise.

Agree or not, it's all in the Constitution.

BTW, I was referring to your philosophy in general - states to mean all political entities (i.e. Nazi Germany).

**Lonestar** · March 22, 2002, 00:22

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.

-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!

-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.

-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** · March 22, 2002, 00:28

Ramo,

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

**DinoDoc** · March 22, 2002, 00:34

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?

**TCO** · March 22, 2002, 00:35

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.

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"!

**Ramo** · March 22, 2002, 00:36

They weren't rebelling States - they legally seceded.

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.

And there are no procedures for secession in the Constitution.

**Lonestar** · March 22, 2002, 00:38

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"

Unless it's really a goose.

Only in Mother Goose tales.

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...

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...

**TCO** · March 22, 2002, 00:39

I've heard older people call it "The War between the States" as opposed to The Civil War.

"The War of Northern Aggression" sounds overwrought. Never heard that much.

Announcement

War of Northeern Aggression

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment