And slavery — as in the ante-bellum Southland — affects the morality of the rights of theoretical secession and the OP’s postulation of states seceding from the Union in 2011 how ? Unless you believe that all current seceders, militia-types of the '90s, birthers and paleo-conservatives, have a hidden agenda to restore the Peculiar Institution only to be revealed as they write their articles of confederation.
And whilst sadly, I understand there is slavery traditional and unhindered in parts of north Africa, I should sincerely doubt the Beast of Tripoli, no matter what his crimes, has ever been impolitic enough to keep unpaid, uncontracted, unable to leave, forced servants about. Whilst many anti-colonialists fought the good fight in order to peacefully continue with owning human property, this would interfere with his championing of African Unity. No-one knows whom he meant for the first presidency-for-life of the continent…
You brought it up:
You don’t get to disown it just because defending slavery demonstrates how morally bankrupt your position is.
Huh. I guess I got mixed up with the breakup of Yugoslavia, which took place largely on religious lines.
So ignore my previous point; here’s a new one to replace it: the breakup of Czechloslovakia was legitimate because it was mutually consensual and was carried out through democratic channels. What the OP is talking about is involuntary seccession - where the seceding party is acting contrary to the wishes of the country as a whole.
Eh…nope. Nary a word about slavery. I merely pointed out that if in 2011 Gaddafi kills rebels he will be condemned by the same people who would applaud the United States’ government for killing rebels if the latter attempt to secede in 2011. Same action = different reaction.
Do you have reading comprehension difficulties ? tactfully
I have not defended slavery at all. [ Although any person has the right to hold any opinion or belief he prefers. ] I despise slavery. and for the record, since you seem hung up on that conflict, I do not support the Confederate States of America.
Had the slave-owning states increased in power and federal dominance back then it could have been the abolitionist states which seceded. In which case the people who condemn theoretical secession and the people who would defend it would simply seamlessly switch to opposite views without a break in step.
There has been exactly one civil war in America, and that one was about slavery.
As for Gaddafi; he deserves to be killed, or forced to flee if that isn’t practical. Whether the rebels try to secede from or overthrow the Gaddafi government is just a matter of power, not morality.
:rolleyes: Because opposition to slavery is more important. Whichever government and culture supported slavery deserved to be destroyed.
He just told you he wasn’t talking about that one. Just because there’s only been one so far and it was about slavery does not mean that a hypothetical future civil war must also be about slavery.
It does suggest that there has to be a clear moral issue of that magnitude for there to be enough people to think a civil war is worth it.
“So aside from that, how was the rest of the rebellion, Mrs. Davis?”