Look, it was a different world then, in terms of social realities and the importance of these issues. Somehow, people believed the government was not protecting their rights or representing them, as promised, so they got very pissed off.
I reject the simple way you want to frame this and couldn’t give you an answer even without such a nonsensical framing.[/quote]
Reject all you want - I am just trying to get a discussion going about what the central question of the Civil War was. And an important one - if this fear exists that you have the government will eventually turn into something that you think will need to throw it off, the fact that it is a democracy muddies up the question of when that threshold has been reached.
You can’t have an opinion? I wasn’t there either, but I have a frank opinion on the matter. So what?
This is nothing more than a punt. Presumably, you know what the Civil War was about, and it is no great tragedy to have an opinion. In your desire to be the thoughtful intellectual, you have substituted rational even-handedness with an unwillingness to have an opinion. No problem, just don’t dress it up as contemplation when it is sidestepping.
Actually, this is a cop-out - and I am actually doing the opposite: I am wanting to discuss ‘democracy’ not in abstract, utopian terms, but in real terms, with real problems that have to be considered, like ones that have already been the cause of historical misery (the Civil War and the Nullification Crisis). You aren’t up to it, fair enough, so it can end here.
While I doubt I will settle anything in the discussion by quoting a notorious slave-owning Southerner, here’s what my old pal Tommy J had to say on the subject.
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
That was in his first inaugural address, a mere sixty years before Lincoln’s.
Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said,
“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union … I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”
At least he was consistent.
I don’t think the question “were they justified in dissolving the political bands that had conected them with another” can ever be answered to everyone’s satisfaction. I believe they were justified, simply because I believe there were overriding economic and political reasons for the South’s secession that were unrelated to the institution of slavery. Just as there were economic and political reasons for the Colonies’ split with the British Empire, in North America and elsewhere.
It’s pretty simple, as far as I can see it. If people wanna leave the party, and you have to keep them from leaving the party by sticking a gun up their nose, it probably wasn’t a very good party to start with.
Charles Dickens, writing from far outside the belly of the beast in 1861 (and having probably ignored that trashy bit of propaganda by Harriet Beecher Stowe), had this to say:
“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils…The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”
I honestly believe that Lincoln did not give a flying fuck for the plight of the South’s 4.5 million African slaves, any more than George Bush probably gives a flying fuck about “Iraqi freedom”.
But federal tariff revenue that would be lost had the South become independent? I suspect that ol’ Abe cared a great deal more about that.
“The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.”
Karl Marx, 1861
This guy knew a bit about justification for revolution, I bet.
“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils…The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”
[/quote]
Every war in the history of men was about money in one way or another, sadly enough.
This is where I don’t agree. Lincoln despised slavery- that’s established, and I don’t think he would mind being known as the great emancipator at all.
I think he may not have done it had the union not dissolved, but he would have made every effort towards ensuring it died.
Also, to compare Lincoln to George W. in any capacity is blasphemy
Also, to compare Lincoln to George W. in any capacity is blasphemy[/quote]
Ha!
I knew you’d like that comparison!
Okay, we shall agree to disagree about Honest Abe’s motives. He was probably not such a bad sort in private company.
I was actually expecting to get flamed for the Stowe reference…then I realized that most of the potential flamers probably have no idea what I’m talking about.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
The word liberal has been used to identify those who do not fall in line and totally, slavishly agree with the policies of this current administration. Also it is used by the many psycho, self-identified ultra-conservatives to identify anyone that doesn’t automatically agree with their vision of the world.
The current administration, with help from the corporate-owned media and the weak assholes in the DNC has made the word synonomous with being a lunatic. In reality, there is a very fine line that separates the majority of so-called conservatives and the majority of so-called liberals.
The fringe elements of both groups are the ones who are causing the amount of strife and discord in the country nowadays. Politics in this country is becoming more and more a colossal joke. [/quote]
I think James Carvil has taken over Al Durr’s post.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
vroom wrote:
That’s why it doesn’t happen every time some stupid new law is passed, it just isn’t worth it to have a revolution because they banned ephedra, for example.
Yeah, but if they ban eurycoma longifolia and tribulus terrestris, the M14 is coming out, damn it.
Crazy liberals and their desire for freedom.[/quote]
Riiiight!
As long as the liberal believes in the freedom you want. Ask a liberal about owning a gun and see how free they want you to be!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
vroom wrote:
That’s why it doesn’t happen every time some stupid new law is passed, it just isn’t worth it to have a revolution because they banned ephedra, for example.
Yeah, but if they ban eurycoma longifolia and tribulus terrestris, the M14 is coming out, damn it.
Crazy liberals and their desire for freedom.
Riiiight!
As long as the liberal believes in the freedom you want. Ask a liberal about owning a gun and see how free they want you to be!
[/quote]
Oh, I don’t know, Lorisco. You may be surprised. Most people around here think Vroom and Irish are as liberal as they come, but check out their stances on guns. And liberty, for that matter. I honestly believe both of these men would bear arms in the defense of freedom. And I’d be happy to be right beside them.
“Liberal” and “Conservative” are pretty meaningless labels, as far as I’m concerned. Lincoln was a Republican. Kennedy was a Democrat. Jefferson was a Democratic Republican. Who gives a fuck?
Crazy liberals and their desire for freedom.[/quote]
Haha! Yeah.
Hey, if I desire the freedom to purchase testosterone-enhancing suppliments and am willing to bear arms to safeguard that freedom, does that make me a liberal, a libertarian, or a libertine?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
vroom wrote:
That’s why it doesn’t happen every time some stupid new law is passed, it just isn’t worth it to have a revolution because they banned ephedra, for example.
Yeah, but if they ban eurycoma longifolia and tribulus terrestris, the M14 is coming out, damn it.
Crazy liberals and their desire for freedom.
Riiiight!
As long as the liberal believes in the freedom you want. Ask a liberal about owning a gun and see how free they want you to be!
Oh, I don’t know, Lorisco. You may be surprised. Most people around here think Vroom and Irish are as liberal as they come, but check out their stances on guns. And liberty, for that matter. I honestly believe both of these men would bear arms in the defense of freedom. And I’d be happy to be right beside them.
“Liberal” and “Conservative” are pretty meaningless labels, as far as I’m concerned. Lincoln was a Republican. Kennedy was a Democrat. Jefferson was a Democratic Republican. Who gives a fuck?
[/quote]
The labeling has grown to retarded levels. I have no problem with gun ownership. I don’t even personally know anyone who is racing to have guns removed from responsible citizens. In fact, I don’t know one guy in my entire family that doesn’t at least own one. You don’t grow up in a neighborhood that could potentially kill you and avoid the thought of owning some personal protection.
I think more worrisome than the fact that the labels just get thrown around is that they really don’t apply to anyone very well. Other than abortion (and even there, to some extent), the political discourse is not very diverse. The majority of the difference is like whether the highest tax rate should be 24%, or 22%, or whether the Iraq invasion was warranted, but poorly thought out, or whether it was unwarranted, and unpoorly thought out. Do you believe in mostly privatized health care, or only significantly privatized health care?
I suspect that’s an outgrowth of federalism, and corporate-sensationalist media. You don’t actually need to have substantive differences (between the parties and policies themselves, for the most part), because you can make it look like a good vs. evil dichotomy. No one is running on an abolish the income tax policy, no matter how libertarian their leanings, and no one is advocating state acquisition of private industry, at least as far as I can tell. It’s all about 5% of difference.
Also, to compare Lincoln to George W. in any capacity is blasphemy
All of the things you imagine Bush doing to the Constitution, Lincoln actually did.[/quote]
Wow, I never thought I’d see the day when I’d be agreeing with you, Doogie, and I might not have put it that way, but yeah, you’re right.
Suspension of habeas corpus, which allowed the military to make random and arbitrary arrests without warrant, and hold suspects indefinitely without trial (Guantanamo bay, 1860’s style) was an act unworthy of an American president.
Also, to compare Lincoln to George W. in any capacity is blasphemy
All of the things you imagine Bush doing to the Constitution, Lincoln actually did.[/quote]
As much as I don’t agree with the things Lincoln did like this, he was in a position where he had to, or the country would fall apart. Like I said, I don’t agree, but I can understand how he felt he had too.
Its alot different than making up a cause and starting a fight in a country overseas simply for monetary gain and bullshit propaganda. At least Lincoln had a real problem, not a fucking media driven war.
Also, to compare Lincoln to George W. in any capacity is blasphemy
All of the things you imagine Bush doing to the Constitution, Lincoln actually did.
As much as I don’t agree with the things Lincoln did like this, he was in a position where he had to, or the country would fall apart. Like I said, I don’t agree, but I can understand how he felt he had too.
Its alot different than making up a cause and starting a fight in a country overseas simply for monetary gain and bullshit propaganda. At least Lincoln had a real problem, not a fucking media driven war.[/quote]
You think making up a cause IN AMERICA simply for monetary gain is better?
You think committing these misdeeds against Americans is better than committing them against people who have attacked us and want to convert or kill every last one of us?
You know, it’s a real treat to see the conservatives bashing a Republican president, and the liberals defending him. This doesn’t happen every day.
Seriously, though, I think Lincoln’s justifications for his actions were pretty shaky, but even assuming he had ironclad reasons, the result was to set a precedent for abuse of executive power that continues to this day.
