Contrapuntal, I cannot believe that you’ve really thought this line of argument through, so I’m not going to pursue it with you.
Daniel
Granted, the analogy is strained. Suppose I characterize the position thusly–*Obviously something illegal must have occurred, else force would not have been applied. * Fair enough? I mean, that’s all I get out of this-
So, by extension, government does not apply force unjustifiably. Ask Rodney King about that.
Why are you not persuing the rest of my response?
Because I am not convinced that you’ve thought carefully about these issues and are arguing them thoughtfully. Your characterization of my position is so far from what I’m actually saying, or what it would be sensible to say, that it’s not worth engaging in a game of gotcha.
Daniel
I’m sorry. I am not going to let this stand. To state that a response by the enforcement branch of government is prima face evidence of illegal activity is absurd, yet that is all your statement does. To dismiss my other points as evidence of insufficient thought is, frankly, mealy-mouthed. Against what argument could you not offer that as a rejoinder?
You asked me to mount a defense; I did so. Absent other evidence, and in acknowledgement of your skills as a debater, I will assume that no response means you do not have one. It should be quite simple. Show me where secession was specifically outlawed pror to the War Between the States.
Please do so.
Daniel
OK even if I totally accept your premise, that these people are just deluding themselves, and if you pick up anything (and I mean anything) made in the CSA J.D. himself personally signed it with the slogan ‘Slavery forever J.D.’ the fact that many many people believe that J.D. true legacy is the issue of state’s rights - that alone should be enough to preserve it. We are not talking about a small fringe group here, but a substantial # of the population.
So what? If a substantial proportion of Muscovites believe that Stalin’s legacy was promoting a just society, does that mean that monuments to him in Russia should–in a moral sense, not a procedural sense–promote him as such? Or should historical markers for Stalin emphasize the evil that he wrought?
Davis wrought a great deal of evil in this country, in an effort to maintain an even greater evil. That’s how he should be remembered; that’s the history that should be preserved.
Daniel
Left Hand of Dorkness we have a country of, for and by the people, at least on paper. If the people which to honor J.D. for states rights, that’s the way the system is suppose to work. If you wish to set history straight and rally the people to burn his house, perhaps you should start a reeducation campaign.
Davis did not wrought a great deal of evil in this country. Well first most of the death was in the CSA, which was captured by the USA, so it was another country so to speak. But this is not important to the issue.
Lincoln was the one who wrought that great evil. I have no doubt that slavery would have ended in the CSA shortly after the war if the war never happened - as it was all over the world, Lincoln forced the war, killing many more then the few remaining years of slavery would have, and substantially weakening the Constitution in the process.
Kanicbird, remind me again which states seceded simply on the news of Lincoln’s lawful election as President? Who seized Federal property across the South? Who formed an interstate confederation in violation of the Constitution? And who was it who fired on an unarmed ship bringing supplies to the Federal garrison at Ft. Sumter before firing on the fort itself?
When negotiations failed, it suited Lincoln’s goal of preserving the Union that war finally came. But to say that he “wrought that great evil” is simply wrong.
Just to pick a nit… Frederick Douglass might disagree. If you include the white south, it is quite debatable, but for north and south blacks, I think FD did more.
Cite?
If we’re supposed to judge Davis as a citizen of the CSA, then his home should be rebuilt using Confederate money. Whatever else Davis did or didn’t do, he led an armed resistance to the federal government. The federal government could restore his house with a big portrait of him in the foyer with the words OUR BITCH written on his forehead in red lipstick.
[QUOTE=kanicbirdLincoln was the one who wrought that great evil. I have no doubt that slavery would have ended in the CSA shortly after the war if the war never happened - as it was all over the world, Lincoln forced the war, killing many more then the few remaining years of slavery would have, and substantially weakening the Constitution in the process.[/QUOTE]
That’s interesting, considering that the southerners objected to Lincoln because he opposed the spread of slavery into the territories. And also, as pointed out by Elendil’s Heir, all Lincoln did to inspire secession was win the election.
That is some seriously twisted logic. Did you read that or did you compose this theory yourself.
Can you provide any proof at all to support that the CSA had any intentions to end slavery.
Why are their so many apologists for the Confederacy? Slavery was wrong, Slavery was long practiced, but slavery was thankfully finally dieing off in most of the Northern World and the confederacy went to war to preserve the institution of slavery. Possibly the least noble cause ever fought for by a people.
Jim
The Confederacy did, no question. Not all individual soldiers did. I think that’s what gets people confused.
I don’t have much of a problem with honoring individual footsoldiers; even though they fought for monstrous leaders, they were fighting, as they saw it, to defend their land against invaders, and that’s not a monstrous cause. A history professor told me recently about a rebel soldier captured by Union forces. The guy was very poor, obviously didn’t own slaves, and the Union soldiers said, “Dude, what’s wrong with you? Why are you risking your life to fight us?”
The rebel soldier looked back at them and answered, “Because you’re here.”
I think that’s why a lot of footsoldiers fought. I can’t get too pissed at them for that.
But that’s not why the leaders fought. The leaders made their reasons crystal clear, and their reasons were the preservation of slavery. It is simply delusion or willful ignorance to claim otherwise.
Daniel
Jefferson Davis house should be preserved to remind us of where we once were. Destroying evidence of the past is pretending it did not happen.
I find it offensive when a government takes power it destroys the monuments of past rulers like that will make them go away. The statues of Buddha which were destroyed was terrible. I think Sadaams stature should have been left as a daily reminder of who was there and what he did.
See my post #56, above:
*“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation…”
*
U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 1.
Excellent point and I know you are correct. But of course Jefferson Davis was fighting to protect the institution of Slavery and that small percentage of wealthy slave owners. The shame is how many good men on both sides died in a failed cause to protect the “Evil” rights of a very small and privilege group.
Jim
Well, the “compact” was among the original 13 colonies. In fact, maybe only among the first nine to ratify it since that established the constitution for those nine. Those states that were brought into the US subsequently were admitted under a constitution that already existed and, it can be argued, were not parties to the compact.
That would mean that a case can be made for Virginia, Georgia and South Carolinas but not the North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida and Texas.
Firing on Fort Sumter should be enough to clarify this argument.
If you were to go out now and fire on a federal military base, you’d find yourself in pretty hot water pretty fast.
Sailboat