Shooting In South Carolina

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
601

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And we see something else in these arguments - the philosophical bent of our resident libertarians to be mor relativists, and in their own way, post modernist types: there is no Right or Wrong, there is only Power, and by Power alone defines rightness.

Yes, I have always contended that libertarianism is far closer to radical, left-wing philosophy, and I’m never more convinced of it than when we start on this subject.[/quote]

I think you mistake telling it the way it is from advocating what should be. On the contrary, what I see being argued is that you and SMH are having your views tented by relativism that occurs when one side wins a war. [/quote]

How? Which phrase, which word in our arguments would acquire a different moral truth value by virtue of a Southern victory, and by what mechanism would this acquisition be accomplished?

Don’t get me wrong, I understand well that the winner controls the propaganda and historiography. But we (i.e., all of us) don’t need to pay heed to either of them – we’ve got the original papers. We’ve got our ears to the horse’s mouth, and it certainly isn’t the case that any of the facts under discussion in this thread (e.g., direct quotations from the secession declarations) are believed to be propagandist fabrications a la Ministry of Truth.

Or is it the case that those rallying around the “victors write history” truism also believe that the absolute moral truth value of a condemnation of the Nazi regime would have been inverted with an Axis victory? The point here being that neither the winners nor the losers control the moral meaning of the contest: that is written indelibly in the nature of the contest itself. Unless moral relativism is assumed, that is.

603

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And we see something else in these arguments - the philosophical bent of our resident libertarians to be mor relativists, and in their own way, post modernist types: there is no Right or Wrong, there is only Power, and by Power alone defines rightness.

Yes, I have always contended that libertarianism is far closer to radical, left-wing philosophy, and I’m never more convinced of it than when we start on this subject.[/quote]

I think you mistake telling it the way it is from advocating what should be. On the contrary, what I see being argued is that you and SMH are having your views tented by relativism that occurs when one side wins a war. [/quote]

How? Which phrase, which word in our arguments would acquire a different moral truth value by virtue of a Southern victory, and by what mechanism would this acquisition be accomplished?

Don’t get me wrong, I understand well that the winner controls the propaganda and historiography. But we (i.e., all of us) don’t need to pay heed to either of them – we’ve got the original papers. We’ve got our ears to the horse’s mouth, and it certainly isn’t the case that any of the facts under discussion in this thread (e.g., direct quotations from the secession declarations) are believed to be propagandist fabrications a la Ministry of Truth.

Or is it the case that those rallying around the “victors write history” truism also believe that the absolute moral truth value of a condemnation of the Nazi regime would have been inverted with an Axis victory? The point here being that neither the winners nor the losers control the moral meaning of the contest: that is written indelibly in the nature of the contest itself. Unless moral relativism is assumed, that is.[/quote]

I never argued that the truth changes by who won. I think in the civil war both sides were grossly wrong. You’ve even admitted that your view of the CSA would be different if it had continued. You (and thunder) are also the one taking the more relative perspective on the 1st and second American Revolution with the biggest difference being whether the rebels won. You are willing to overlook the fact that Lincoln didn’t want blacks to be American citizens or even allowed to live in the US. Why? I can only assume because he won. That is moral relativism by authority of power and victory.

604

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
and not the slightest bit of grey vis-a-vis the West, its moral cause, and the extent to which it and its leaders are deserving of public celebration.[/quote]

This would be true if the whole of the individuals was encompassed by the war and the politics of the day. After reading a Forrest biography, I’m actually more okay with his celebration. His hard work in rebuilding the union and arguing for black rights and integration after the war are extraordinary especially in his day. (there happens to be a large Forrest statue not too far from where I work that regularly gets vandalized)[/quote]

This is akin to what TB argued earlier in the thread. I am not terribly opposed to it, though I would point out that any Confederate leader worthy of celebration is going to be so for his contribution to some other cause, or for his advocacy in some other capacity (e.g., arguing for black rights and integration after the war). Thus he becomes like Jefferson or Madison – a flawed many memorialized for his contribution to something that is worth celebration. Military or political contributions to the CSA qua military or political contributions to the CSA are, I think, unarguably not to be celebrated.

If the issue were approached this way, my general sentiment and argument about the CSA (which reason will not allow me to abandon) thus remains intact while also allowing for the human complexity that you and TB have correctly invoked.

605

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I never argued that the truth changes by who won. I think in the civil war both sides were grossly wrong. You’ve even admitted that your view of the CSA would be different if it had continued. You (and thunder) are also the one taking the more relative perspective on the 1st and second American Revolution with the biggest difference being whether the rebels won. You are willing to overlook the fact that Lincoln didn’t want blacks to be American citizens or even allowed to live in the US. Why? I can only assume because he won. That is moral relativism by authority of power and victory. [/quote]

I haven’t ever showed willingness or desire to overlook any of Lincoln’s contradictions or complexities.

As for me making the easy observation that I’d have seen the CSA differently if it had won and continued to exist, you’ve misinterpreted this. The CSA actually would have gone on to other things, and it would have acquired the actual corresponding meanings and associations along the way. This is not a matter of my interpretation vis-a-vis the privileges of military victory; it’s a statement of fact. The CSA never came to mean anything more than what it meant during its short and monovalent existence. This is not relativism, and it certainly has no bearing on the moral truth value of the things that did happen in reality, which is what concerns us here.

606

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I never argued that the truth changes by who won. I think in the civil war both sides were grossly wrong. You’ve even admitted that your view of the CSA would be different if it had continued. You (and thunder) are also the one taking the more relative perspective on the 1st and second American Revolution with the biggest difference being whether the rebels won. You are willing to overlook the fact that Lincoln didn’t want blacks to be American citizens or even allowed to live in the US. Why? I can only assume because he won. That is moral relativism by authority of power and victory. [/quote]

I haven’t ever showed willingness or desire to overlook any of Lincoln’s contradictions or complexities.

As for me making the easy observation that I’d have seen the CSA differently if it had won and continued to exist, you’ve misinterpreted this. The CSA actually would have gone on to other things, and it would have acquired the actual corresponding meanings and associations along the way. This is not a matter of my interpretation vis-a-vis the privileges of military victory; it’s a statement of fact. The CSA never came to mean anything more than what it meant during its short and monovalent existence. This is not relativism, and it certainly has no bearing on the moral truth value of the things that did happen in reality, which is what concerns us here.[/quote]

I think it’s a little trickier than that with the military side. Can you not extend that to celebrate the courage, tactics, and fortitude of a military commander outside of the politics and personal flaws? It’s something even the soldiers how fought against them did. We certainly do for antiquity. Napoleon’s monuments still stand in France for example, even though he was an evil bastard (and it isn’t that much further distant than the US civil war).

607

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nobody here in this particular discussion except Nick is a libertarian, TB. Like I said, the tideas mahawk you use on libertarianism is getting dull.[/quote]

Ok, well, then let’s come up with a name for it, and then, by its proper name, we can continue to expose what a juvenile set of relativistic ideas it is that forms its philosophy. It’s your philosophy - call it whatever you like.

608

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think it’s a little trickier than that with the military side. Can you not extend that to celebrate the courage, tactics, and fortitude of a military commander outside of the politics and personal flaws? [/quote]

Personal flaws are fine – no person has ever come or gone without at least a few – but the nature and animating cause of the conflict are inextricable from good soldiership (for me). Technical brilliance and fighting spirit don’t stop being what they are, but they cease to be worthy of public celebration when they are employed by such historical causes as the disunion of the United States out of fear for the future propertyhood of black slaves, or the European (and eventual world) dominance of the Aryan race.

As I said to Varq, I can understand an exception being made in the case of military schools/installations, for which the narrow, agnostic achievement of technical military prowess is logically relevant. My opinion is that a public high school entails a wider kind of celebration, one to which the Confederate cause is not remotely suited.

610

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Similar to what others have already written on this thread: whoever wins gets to decide what the rules were.[/quote]

Yep, and to call someone else(DoubleDuce, I believe) a moral relativist while making that very argument is absurd. Might does not make right in morality(at least, I hope that one’s morality is not determined that way), although it certainly does in matters of legality. “Treason” is a legal term.

Slaves were morally justified in revolting. The colonials were morally justified in revolting. The CSA were morally justified in revolting. The USA was not morally justified in passing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. England was not morally justified in attempting to prevent the colonials from separating. The USA was not morally justified in attempting to prevent the CSA from separating.

It would be interesting to know whether those making opposing arguments believe John Brown committed treason, or was justified in his actions.

611

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nobody here in this particular discussion except Nick is a libertarian, TB. Like I said, the tideas mahawk you use on libertarianism is getting dull.[/quote]

Ok, well, then let’s come up with a name for it, and then, by its proper name, we can continue to expose what a juvenile set of relativistic ideas it is that forms its philosophy. It’s your philosophy - call it whatever you like.[/quote]

Well, one name for this post of yours is – horseshit. This discussion has been going on since April of 1865. It’s not about libertarianism regardless of whether libertarians have adopted the stances you despise.[/quote]

I am speaking specifically about this postmodern expression of moral relativism that has popped up on this board, of which you’ve been a proponent - there is no right or wrong, no truth, only power, and power defines truth.

Our resident libertarian non-libertarians have copped to this philosophy, not more than a page or two ago.

That hasn’t been “raging since 1865”. It’s a reflection of the lack of seriousness along its adherents.

612

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Similar to what others have already written on this thread: whoever wins gets to decide what the rules were.[/quote]

Yep, and to call someone else(DoubleDuce, I believe) a moral relativist while making that very argument is absurd. Might does not make right in morality(at least, I hope that one’s morality is not determined that way), although it certainly does in matters of legality. “Treason” is a legal term.

Slaves were morally justified in revolting. The colonials were morally justified in revolting. The CSA were morally justified in revolting. The USA was not morally justified in passing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. England was not morally justified in attempting to prevent the colonials from separating. The USA was not morally justified in attempting to prevent the CSA from separating.

It would be interesting to know whether those making opposing arguments believe John Brown committed treason, or was justified in his actions.[/quote]

The US was certainly morally and legally justified in preventing the CSA from departing - since the CSA had no moral or legal right to leave the Union. The Slave Power had long gotten their way in Congressional politics (with the three-fifths clause not exactly hurting their efforts). The democratic tide turned, however, and the Slave Power would not be able to realize it’s dream of expanding into the West as an aggressive slave “empire”. The turning of that democratic tide - I.e., changes in views on policy and morality - doesn’t justify unilaterally “seceding” from the nation.

613

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Nobody here in this particular discussion except Nick is a libertarian, TB. Like I said, the tideas mahawk you use on libertarianism is getting dull.[/quote]

Ok, well, then let’s come up with a name for it, and then, by its proper name, we can continue to expose what a juvenile set of relativistic ideas it is that forms its philosophy. It’s your philosophy - call it whatever you like.[/quote]

Well, one name for this post of yours is – horseshit. This discussion has been going on since April of 1865. It’s not about libertarianism regardless of whether libertarians have adopted the stances you despise.[/quote]

I am speaking specifically about this postmodern expression of moral relativism that has popped up on this board, of which you’ve been a proponent - there is no right or wrong, no truth, only power, and power defines truth.

Our resident libertarian non-libertarians have copped to this philosophy, not more than a page or two ago.

That hasn’t been “raging since 1865”. It’s a reflection of the lack of seriousness along its adherents.
[/quote]

Which of my morals do you think I’ve change with what circumstance?

614

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Similar to what others have already written on this thread: whoever wins gets to decide what the rules were.[/quote]

Yep, and to call someone else(DoubleDuce, I believe) a moral relativist while making that very argument is absurd. Might does not make right in morality(at least, I hope that one’s morality is not determined that way), although it certainly does in matters of legality. “Treason” is a legal term.

Slaves were morally justified in revolting. The colonials were morally justified in revolting. The CSA were morally justified in revolting. The USA was not morally justified in passing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. England was not morally justified in attempting to prevent the colonials from separating. The USA was not morally justified in attempting to prevent the CSA from separating.

It would be interesting to know whether those making opposing arguments believe John Brown committed treason, or was justified in his actions.[/quote]

The US was certainly morally and legally justified in preventing the CSA from departing - since the CSA had no moral or legal right to leave the Union. The Slave Power had long gotten their way in Congressional politics (with the three-fifths clause not exactly hurting their efforts). The democratic tide turned, however, and the Slave Power would not be able to realize it’s dream of expanding into the West as an aggressive slave “empire”. The turning of that democratic tide - I.e., changes in views on policy and morality - doesn’t justify unilaterally “seceding” from the nation.
[/quote]

And John Brown?

615

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Similar to what others have already written on this thread: whoever wins gets to decide what the rules were.[/quote]

Yep, and to call someone else(DoubleDuce, I believe) a moral relativist while making that very argument is absurd. Might does not make right in morality(at least, I hope that one’s morality is not determined that way), although it certainly does in matters of legality. “Treason” is a legal term.

Slaves were morally justified in revolting. The colonials were morally justified in revolting. The CSA were morally justified in revolting. The USA was not morally justified in passing the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. England was not morally justified in attempting to prevent the colonials from separating. The USA was not morally justified in attempting to prevent the CSA from separating.

It would be interesting to know whether those making opposing arguments believe John Brown committed treason, or was justified in his actions.[/quote]

The US was certainly morally and legally justified in preventing the CSA from departing - since the CSA had no moral or legal right to leave the Union. The Slave Power had long gotten their way in Congressional politics (with the three-fifths clause not exactly hurting their efforts). The democratic tide turned, however, and the Slave Power would not be able to realize it’s dream of expanding into the West as an aggressive slave “empire”. The turning of that democratic tide - I.e., changes in views on policy and morality - doesn’t justify unilaterally “seceding” from the nation.
[/quote]

And John Brown?[/quote]

What about him?

617

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The US was certainly morally and legally justified in preventing the CSA from departing - since the CSA had no moral or legal right to leave the Union. The Slave Power had long gotten their way in Congressional politics (with the three-fifths clause not exactly hurting their efforts). The democratic tide turned, however, and the Slave Power would not be able to realize it’s dream of expanding into the West as an aggressive slave “empire”. The turning of that democratic tide - I.e., changes in views on policy and morality - doesn’t justify unilaterally “seceding” from the nation.
[/quote]

On the moral side of the argument, I can agree, on the legal side, it’s not as black and white as you seem to assert.

A process of secession is not spelled out in the Constitution (it’s silent on the issue), only procedures for states being admitted to the Union. Hence, we have to deflect to the 10th Amendment, which asserts that any power not delegated to the federal government by the states, and not prohibited to the states by the COTUS, remained a right of the states or the people. The states never delegated to the federal government any specific power to suppress secession, therefore it certainly can be argued to have remained, at that time, a reserved right of the states. Did Buchanan, through his inaction, not believe that the federal government couldn’t coerce a seceding state, opposite of Lincoln’s political position?

Virginia, New York and Rhode Island had included in their ratification of the COTUS clauses that permitted withdraw from the Union if the new government became abusive, which was partly their basis for acceding to the Union (VA cited this in its secession statement). Furthermore, if the COTUS is based on co-equality - all states are equal in rights, and no state possesses more rights than another - the right of secession cited by these three states can be argued to extend equally to all states.

If you fast forward to post-Civil War, the topic was visited in the Supreme Court case Texas v. White, involving the repayment of confederate bonds. The majority opinion noted the following:
“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”

What constitutes “consent of the States”? Does the Civil War classify as a revolution in this sense? It’s hard to discern, but the absence of a specific tenet on secession in the Constitution leaves open the possibility of legal avenues that, while perhaps questionable, doesn’t relegate it to not being “legally justified” as easily as it would otherwise have been if said language was explicit.

618

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
And John Brown?[/quote]

What about him?
[/quote]

I believe I mentioned what I would like to know, in my post to which you responded.

619

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The US was certainly morally and legally justified in preventing the CSA from departing - since the CSA had no moral or legal right to leave the Union. The Slave Power had long gotten their way in Congressional politics (with the three-fifths clause not exactly hurting their efforts). The democratic tide turned, however, and the Slave Power would not be able to realize it’s dream of expanding into the West as an aggressive slave “empire”. The turning of that democratic tide - I.e., changes in views on policy and morality - doesn’t justify unilaterally “seceding” from the nation.
[/quote]

On the moral side of the argument, I can agree, on the legal side, it’s not as black and white as you seem to assert.

A process of secession is not spelled out in the Constitution (it’s silent on the issue), only procedures for states being admitted to the Union. Hence, we have to deflect to the 10th Amendment, which asserts that any power not delegated to the federal government by the states, and not prohibited to the states by the COTUS, remained a right of the states or the people. The states never delegated to the federal government any specific power to suppress secession, therefore it certainly can be argued to have remained, at that time, a reserved right of the states. Did Buchanan, through his inaction, not believe that the federal government couldn’t coerce a seceding state, opposite of Lincoln’s political position?

Virginia, New York and Rhode Island had included in their ratification of the COTUS clauses that permitted withdraw from the Union if the new government became abusive, which was partly their basis for acceding to the Union (VA cited this in its secession statement). Furthermore, if the COTUS is based on co-equality - all states are equal in rights, and no state possesses more rights than another - the right of secession cited by these three states can be argued to extend equally to all states.

If you fast forward to post-Civil War, the topic was visited in the Supreme Court case Texas v. White, involving the repayment of confederate bonds. The majority opinion noted the following:
“When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.”

What constitutes “consent of the States”? Does the Civil War classify as a revolution in this sense? It’s hard to discern, but the absence of a specific tenet on secession in the Constitution leaves open the possibility of legal avenues that, while perhaps questionable, doesn’t relegate it to not being “legally justified” as easily as it would otherwise have been if said language was explicit.
[/quote]

Sorry, with all due respect, I’ve dealt with this subject so many times on PWI, it’s not worth repeating myself. But, quickly, the Tenth Amendment doesn’t solve the problem - the Tenth Amendment reads as a truism. Saying the Tenth Amendment resolves the issue is begging the question.

There is nothing in the text or the spirit of the Constitution giving rise to a right to unilaterally leave - and thereforr destroy - the Union. To allow such a scenario under the Constitution while at the same time painstakingly providing for the procedures and makeup of Congress is simply absurd. Why would the Framers create a complicated system of checks and balances that is supposed to (generally) provide for majority rule - with attendant needs to pass two houses, one populist in nature, one federalist, and to be signed by the elected chief executive - all of that trouble and thought to make federal laws, only for one state to have the (unwritten) power to undermine the whole process by claiming they have a power to walk away whenever they choose? Then why have states’ direct representation (via the Senate) if the state gets a secession veto?

Again, it leads to absurd results. You couldn’t secede under the Articles, and there is no reason to think that under the Constitution - designed to make the federal government stronger, not weaker - a state could secede.

And the Constitution isn’t silent on suppressing insurrection and rebellion - which is what secession is.

Feel free to run a search. It’s out there, multiple times.

620

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Sorry, with all due respect, I’ve dealt with this subject so many times on PWI, it’s not worth repeating myself. But, quickly, the Tenth Amendment doesn’t solve the problem - the Tenth Amendment reads as a truism. Saying the Tenth Amendment resolves the issue is begging the question.

There is nothing in the text or the spirit of the Constitution giving rise to a right to unilaterally leave - and thereforr destroy - the Union. To allow such a scenario under the Constitution while at the same time painstakingly providing for the procedures and makeup of Congress is simply absurd. Why would the Framers create a complicated system of checks and balances that is supposed to (generally) provide for majority rule - with attendant needs to pass two houses, one populist in nature, one federalist, and to be signed by the elected chief executive - all of that trouble and thought to make federal laws, only for one state to have the (unwritten) power to undermine the whole process by claiming they have a power to walk away whenever they choose? Then why have states’ direct representation (via the Senate) if the state gets a secession veto?

Again, it leads to absurd results. You couldn’t secede under the Articles, and there is no reason to think that under the Constitution - designed to make the federal government stronger, not weaker - a state could secede.

And the Constitution isn’t silent on suppressing insurrection and rebellion - which is what secession is.

Feel free to run a search. It’s out there, multiple times.
[/quote]

I never said it resolves the issue, simply that I disagree with your interpretation that it’s a settled matter as you assert. Even that Supreme Court decision leaves open two paths, so even considering that, there is a potential process (i.e., revolution or consent of the states). A better argument would be that, in the case of the Confederacy, their path to secession was unconstitutional given the seizure of federal property and so forth, hence Lincoln’s hand was forced, and that was surmised in that Supreme Court case. I won’t detract from that thread by opening up a new argument, so agree to disagree then.