Shooting In South Carolina

smh_23 · July 21, 2015, 2:01pm

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
At stake was the very preservation of the new nation, under the Constitution, which allowed slavery. The British had abolished the slave trade in 1807, and a British victory in the War of 1812 would have meant the end of slavery in North America rather sooner than it actually happened.

So yes, in a very real sense, Madison waged war in order to preserve the institution of slavery.[/quote]

About two decades earlier, as it happened. Or one, if the newly reintegrated American colony could have finagled a spot on the list of excepted territories.

But what evidence do we have that slavery has any material connection with the 1812 casus belli? Such evidence exists in comical abundance vis-a-vis the CSA. Did slavery come even a little close to bearing on the 1812-era evidence that survives?

Edit:

To illustrate my point very (very, very) unscientifically, the letters s, l, a, v, and e do not appear in that order a single time on this page…

…whereas, on this page…

…the number is 498.

DoubleDuce · July 21, 2015, 1:56pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Madison didn’t commit treason against his government…
[/quote]

Uh, what?

smh_23 · July 21, 2015, 2:06pm

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Similarly, the difference between a Founder and a leader of the CSA is, for me, this: We celebrate the Founders for their role in the Founding. They were flawed men who created something that was equally flawed but also exceptional and destined for true and literal greatness in no small part because of the genius with which they created it. There are causes and consequences here worthy of emphatic celebration, even as we remember the dirt under the fingernails. In the case of the causes and consequences bound up with the CSA, less presents itself for public celebration. The dirt under the fingernails was kind of the whole idea.[/quote]

I don’t possess the knowledge to make a definitive statement, but that strikes me as something that depends pretty heavily on one’s perspective.

Had the results of the Civil War been different, so might the prevailing perspective be.[/quote]

I’m sure you’re right about that second sentence. And, indeed, it’s probably true that the CSA would have gone on to other things – things worth celebrating. (One can’t imagine that they’d still be selling slaves in Mississippi today.)

But it didn’t get the chance to go on to other things, so the narrow thing it was is the narrow thing it always will have been. As for the interpretation of the CSA cause, I don’t see how perspective can alter a single thing (other than if we were to take the perspective of a Cliven Bundy). In the words of the Confederate heroes from Texas: “[Northerners] demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.” What does perspective alter about the preceding sentence?

thunderbolt23 · July 21, 2015, 2:01pm

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
And I don’t mean to pick on James Madison.

Think about it, though. Whatever you can say about a Confederate “hero”, you can say about a number of “Founding Fathers”.

Charles Carroll, Samuel Chase, Benjamin Franklin, Button Gwinnett, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, James Madison, Benjamin Rush, Edward Rutledge and George Washington were all very wealthy men, most of them southerners, many of them plantation owners, ALL of them slave owners. ALL of them guilty of treason against their lawful government and would undoubtedly have been hanged as traitors had their rebellion failed. Many of them are on record as stating that the negro was the inferior of the white, and had no business being free and equal to the white. Many of them, in fact, including your avatar boy, wished to round them all up and send them back to Africa.

So let’s maybe be careful about painting with such a broad brush. Paint does have a tendency to splatter into places we’d like to remain clean and pure.[/quote]

Not necessarily. Views on slavery changed over the years. Many from the founding generation observed slavery as a necessary, or at least tolerable, evil that didn’t lend itself to solution without a high cost. By the time the Civil War occurred, a new view had taken root among the Slavocrats - slavery was a positive good, it was nature’s progressive ordering of superior races.

Because of this view, the new thinking was not simply to tolerate this “evil” where it existed and prepare for its eventual demise but rather to aggressively expand and bring this new view of “progress” to the West. Gone were the days of the founding generation’s policies exemplified by the Northwest Ordinance - slavery was rhe future of Man and needed to be grown.

Our Founding Generation was far from sinless, but they were creatures if their time - but most importantly, they had substantially different views on slavery than did the Calhoun-influenced Slave Power of the 1860s.

thunderbolt23 · July 21, 2015, 2:08pm

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
At stake was the very preservation of the new nation, under the Constitution, which allowed slavery. The British had abolished the slave trade in 1807, and a British victory in the War of 1812 would have meant the end of slavery in North America rather sooner than it actually happened.

So yes, in a very real sense, Madison waged war in order to preserve the institution of slavery.[/quote]

About two decades earlier, as it happened. Or one, if the newly reintegrated American colony could have finagled a spot on the list of excepted territories.

But what evidence do we have that slavery has any material connection with the 1812 casus belli? Such evidence exists in comical abundance vis-a-vis the CSA. Did slavery come even a little close to bearing on the 1812-era evidence that survives?

Edit:

To illustrate my point very (very, very) unscientifically, the letters s, l, a, v, and e do not appear in that order a single time on this page…

…whereas, on this page…

…the number is 498.[/quote]

The British helped facilitate the escape of slaves (mainly by allowing said slaves to board their ships, essentially freeing them). While some were no doubt irate about British actions in this area, the War of 1812 was not materially fought over this issue, libertarian revisionism aside.

thunderbolt23 · July 21, 2015, 2:09pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Madison didn’t commit treason against his government…
[/quote]

Uh, what?[/quote]

What is confusing about this?

smh_23 · July 21, 2015, 2:11pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
At stake was the very preservation of the new nation, under the Constitution, which allowed slavery. The British had abolished the slave trade in 1807, and a British victory in the War of 1812 would have meant the end of slavery in North America rather sooner than it actually happened.

So yes, in a very real sense, Madison waged war in order to preserve the institution of slavery.[/quote]

About two decades earlier, as it happened. Or one, if the newly reintegrated American colony could have finagled a spot on the list of excepted territories.

But what evidence do we have that slavery has any material connection with the 1812 casus belli? Such evidence exists in comical abundance vis-a-vis the CSA. Did slavery come even a little close to bearing on the 1812-era evidence that survives?

Edit:

To illustrate my point very (very, very) unscientifically, the letters s, l, a, v, and e do not appear in that order a single time on this page…

…whereas, on this page…

…the number is 498.[/quote]

The British helped facilitate the escape of slaves (mainly by allowing said slaves to board their ships, essentially freeing them). While some were no doubt irate about British actions in this area, the War of 1812 was not materially fought over this issue, libertarian revisionism aside.
[/quote]

Yes exactly. Slavery figured into the war as what is essentially a British military tactic (and even this wasn’t made official until long after the war’s beginning). But this is incidental to the war’s cause and meaning: in order to establish a useful analogy with the Civil War, centrality would have to be shown.

thunderbolt23 · July 21, 2015, 2:17pm

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
At stake was the very preservation of the new nation, under the Constitution, which allowed slavery. The British had abolished the slave trade in 1807, and a British victory in the War of 1812 would have meant the end of slavery in North America rather sooner than it actually happened.

So yes, in a very real sense, Madison waged war in order to preserve the institution of slavery.[/quote]

About two decades earlier, as it happened. Or one, if the newly reintegrated American colony could have finagled a spot on the list of excepted territories.

But what evidence do we have that slavery has any material connection with the 1812 casus belli? Such evidence exists in comical abundance vis-a-vis the CSA. Did slavery come even a little close to bearing on the 1812-era evidence that survives?

Edit:

To illustrate my point very (very, very) unscientifically, the letters s, l, a, v, and e do not appear in that order a single time on this page…

…whereas, on this page…

…the number is 498.[/quote]

The British helped facilitate the escape of slaves (mainly by allowing said slaves to board their ships, essentially freeing them). While some were no doubt irate about British actions in this area, the War of 1812 was not materially fought over this issue, libertarian revisionism aside.
[/quote]

Yes exactly. Slavery figured into the war as what is essentially a British military tactic (and even this wasn’t made official until long after the war’s beginning). But this is incidental to the war’s cause and meaning: in order to establish a useful analogy with the Civil War, centrality would have to be shown.[/quote]

Yes. And this argument about the War of 1812 feels like “hey, the Civil War was really over tariffs” 2.0.

DoubleDuce · July 21, 2015, 2:25pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Madison didn’t commit treason against his government…
[/quote]

Uh, what?[/quote]

What is confusing about this?
[/quote]

The fact that he was a bold faced traitor? And played a leading role in a treacherous revolution?

Maybe you specifically mean in his actions as president in the war of 1812? Though he was fighting the country he committed treason against and the conflict was largely a fallout from that treason. He was still a traitor.

thunderbolt23 · July 21, 2015, 2:33pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Madison didn’t commit treason against his government…
[/quote]

Uh, what?[/quote]

What is confusing about this?
[/quote]

The fact that he was a bold faced traitor? And played a leading role in a treacherous revolution?

Maybe you specifically mean in his actions as president in the war of 1812? Though he was fighting the country he committed treason against and the conflict was largely a fallout from that treason. He was still a traitor.
[/quote]

The British certainly thought Madison a traitor. So you’re saying they were right?

Madison didn’t think he was a traitor - he thought he was participating in a justified revolution in defense of natural rights.

Either the British were right, or Madison is right, but both cannot be right - so which one is it?

You seem to think the British.

DoubleDuce · July 21, 2015, 2:40pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Madison didn’t commit treason against his government…
[/quote]

Uh, what?[/quote]

What is confusing about this?
[/quote]

The fact that he was a bold faced traitor? And played a leading role in a treacherous revolution?

Maybe you specifically mean in his actions as president in the war of 1812? Though he was fighting the country he committed treason against and the conflict was largely a fallout from that treason. He was still a traitor.
[/quote]

The British certainly thought Madison a traitor. So you’re saying they were right?

Madison didn’t think he was a traitor - he thought he was participating in a justified revolution in defense of natural rights.

Either the British were right, or Madison is right, but both cannot be right - so which one is it?

You seem to think the British.
[/quote]

“the crime of trying to overthrow your country’s government” Yes, he was a traitor. What they did was illegal. If he was justified or not has nothing to do with it. What they did was the exact definition of treason.

Madison was a traitor to his British loyalties and government. The same as all the other founding fathers.

thunderbolt23 · July 21, 2015, 2:53pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Madison didn’t commit treason against his government…
[/quote]

Uh, what?[/quote]

What is confusing about this?
[/quote]

The fact that he was a bold faced traitor? And played a leading role in a treacherous revolution?

Maybe you specifically mean in his actions as president in the war of 1812? Though he was fighting the country he committed treason against and the conflict was largely a fallout from that treason. He was still a traitor.
[/quote]

The British certainly thought Madison a traitor. So you’re saying they were right?

Madison didn’t think he was a traitor - he thought he was participating in a justified revolution in defense of natural rights.

Either the British were right, or Madison is right, but both cannot be right - so which one is it?

You seem to think the British.
[/quote]

“the crime of trying to overthrow your country’s government” Yes, he was a traitor. What they did was illegal. If he was justified or not has nothing to do with it. What they did was the exact definition of treason.

Madison was a traitor to his British loyalties and government. The same as all the other founding fathers.[/quote]

Ok, so you side with the British. Good to know.

It wasn’t treason, precisely because of the justification. If it is justified, then it ceases to be treason, because justification is at the very heart of what constitutes treason or not - in the same way thay if you kill someone, if it was justified in the name of self-defense, you didn’t commit murder (although the person is dead all the same).

As an aside, why insist that the Founders committed treason? Oh yes, so that the Confederacy - which did commit treason - can claim kinship with the Founding Fathers, the usual libertarian line.

DoubleDuce · July 21, 2015, 3:06pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Ok, so you side with the British. Good to know.

It wasn’t treason, precisely because of the justification. If it is justified, then it ceases to be treason, because justification is at the very heart of what constitutes treason or not - in the same way thay if you kill someone, if it was justified in the name of self-defense, you didn’t commit murder (although the person is dead all the same).

As an aside, why insist that the Founders committed treason? Oh yes, so that the Confederacy - which did commit treason - can claim kinship with the Founding Fathers, the usual libertarian line.
[/quote]

Kindly don’t put words in my mouth, I’ll make my own claims. I was only noting your bold falsehood. What they did was legally treason. The signers of the DOI acknowledged and knew this.

I’d also point out that the just-ness of an action is generally determined by what side wins. If we’d lost the revolution they’d have been hanged and remembered as traitors. They had all sworn loyalty to the British crown. The fact that they are now remembered for things afterward is due to the fact that we won and there was a later.

2busy · July 21, 2015, 3:16pm

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I will go so far as to say that the War of 1812 was a direct analogue to the Civil War. On one side we have a newly-minted Confederacy of slave-owning states who have seceded from their government, which has abolished slavery partly on moral grounds, but mostly because its industrial economy has rendered the institution unprofitable. The Confederacy was the instigator of the war, prompting a full-scale invasion by the central government, which resulted in the capital of the confederacy being burnt to the ground. A great number of slaves were emancipated from the Confederacy by the central government, and went on to fight against their former masters. The difference is that the rebels prevailed, the institution of slavery was preserved in the Confederacy, and the central government licked its wounds and went home.

The Star-Spangled Banner was the battle flag of this confederacy. Should we now, enlightened and sensitive as we are here in the 21st century, take it down, and stop singing about the battle over which it flew?[/quote]

They’re working on it.

thunderbolt23 · July 21, 2015, 3:17pm

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Ok, so you side with the British. Good to know.

It wasn’t treason, precisely because of the justification. If it is justified, then it ceases to be treason, because justification is at the very heart of what constitutes treason or not - in the same way thay if you kill someone, if it was justified in the name of self-defense, you didn’t commit murder (although the person is dead all the same).

As an aside, why insist that the Founders committed treason? Oh yes, so that the Confederacy - which did commit treason - can claim kinship with the Founding Fathers, the usual libertarian line.
[/quote]

Kindly don’t put words in my mouth, I’ll make my own claims. I was only noting your bold falsehood. What they did was legally treason. The signers of the DOI acknowledged and knew this.

I’d also point out that the just-ness of an action is generally determined by what side wins. If we’d lost the revolution they’d have been hanged and remembered as traitors. They had all sworn loyalty to the British crown. The fact that they are now remembered for things afterward is due to the fact that we won and there was a later.[/quote]

The signed of the Declaration understood that they would be killed for treasonous acts, but they didn’t think they were committing treason. They thought they were invoking their natural right to revolt against an unjust government. If you are justified in doing so, you aren’t committing treason.

Doesn’t matter that the British thought it was treason - it only matters who was right. And regardless of who won the war, in this instance, someone was right and someone was wrong.

Lucky for us, our Founding Fathers weren’t moral relativists, as you appear to be. They thought liberty was worth revolting and fighting for, and they had the courage of their convictions, even if they lost the war.

DoubleDuce · July 21, 2015, 3:23pm

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Ok, so you side with the British. Good to know.

It wasn’t treason, precisely because of the justification. If it is justified, then it ceases to be treason, because justification is at the very heart of what constitutes treason or not - in the same way thay if you kill someone, if it was justified in the name of self-defense, you didn’t commit murder (although the person is dead all the same).

As an aside, why insist that the Founders committed treason? Oh yes, so that the Confederacy - which did commit treason - can claim kinship with the Founding Fathers, the usual libertarian line.
[/quote]

Kindly don’t put words in my mouth, I’ll make my own claims. I was only noting your bold falsehood. What they did was legally treason. The signers of the DOI acknowledged and knew this.

I’d also point out that the just-ness of an action is generally determined by what side wins. If we’d lost the revolution they’d have been hanged and remembered as traitors. They had all sworn loyalty to the British crown. The fact that they are now remembered for things afterward is due to the fact that we won and there was a later.[/quote]

The signed of the Declaration understood that they would be killed for treasonous acts, but they didn’t think they were committing treason. They thought they were invoking their natural right to revolt against an unjust government. If you are justified in doing so, you aren’t committing treason.

Doesn’t matter that the British thought it was treason - it only matters who was right. And regardless of who won the war, in this instance, someone was right and someone was wrong.

Lucky for us, our Founding Fathers weren’t moral relativists, as you appear to be. They thought liberty was worth revolting and fighting for, and they had the courage of their convictions, even if they lost the war.
[/quote]

I’m not discussing morality. I’m discussing treason. They swore and owed loyalty to the crown. They violated their oaths and revolted. That’s called treason. Those are the facts. I never said it was immoral.

You are the one that claimed treason was bad. You are the one that sided morally with the British.

thunderbolt23 · July 21, 2015, 3:36pm