Shooting In South Carolina

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
641

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
To clear up any confusion:

Secession: I can formally leave without anyone’s permission.

Consent: I can leave, but I have to reach agreement with other interested parties.

Revolution: I can throw off a government that has over and over again denied me my natural rights, and I don’t need anyone’s permission or constitutional authority.

[/quote]

So if, for example, one people were to attempt to unilaterally “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume their separate and equal station”, this is by your definition absolutely “throwing off a government” and absolutely not “leaving without anyone’s permission or authority”?

Don’t know what kind of razor you are using to split these hairs, but it certainly isn’t Occam’s. [/quote]

Conveniently, but erroneously, you left out a word in my description, bolded for ease this time around - formally leaving without anyone’s permission, as in, formal, as in, “officially sanctioned or recognized”.

As in, the controlling document/law recognizes a right to leave without seeking any agreement among other interested parties, as in what neoConfederates claim the Constitution provides, and what the Lisbon Treaty actually does provide for European Uniok members (with some caveats).

As in, I can leave without anyone’s permission, but it is lawful and sanctioned by the law, and doing so isn’t illegal.

Contrast to revolution, which is dissolving the bands with a government not through a formal, legal, sanctioned mechanism, but by revolt, because natural rights have been violated.

Secession ain’t revolution, and revolution ain’t secession.

Hope this helps.

642

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Now I think I understand you. I’ve been using “secession” specifically in the context of how slave states that unilaterally seceded prior to the Civil War (no consent) used and defended that term. As distinguished from a form of lawful withdrawal, via a constitutional convention for the moat authoritative and cleanest way.

But the Tenth Amendment wouldn’t impact that power. Lawful withdrawal - whatever its form - would be a purely federal matter.
[/quote]

Okay, then I think the argument here was ultimately based on a difference in the use of semantics. I’m not a Confederate apologist, hence I do think Lincoln’s hand was forced in 1861 and that he had no other choice but to respond when Fort Sumter was fired upon.

Although not explicitly laid out anywhere in the original text, I do think there is, within the framework of the Constitution, an ability (arguably) for states to be able to withdraw (peaceably/amicably, legitimately, legally, or however one chooses to approach it) from the Union, but in the historical case of the American War Between the States, the Confederacy’s actions at that time weren’t congruous with whatever that legitimate process might actually be, hence the Union had no choice but to respond with force. In fact, Article I makes it pretty clear that “the Militia,” ultimately via command of the Executive branch, is to available to “suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Edit: My original post on this topic wasn’t very clear in articulating my position.

643

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
To clear up any confusion:

Secession: I can formally leave without anyone’s permission.

Consent: I can leave, but I have to reach agreement with other interested parties.

Revolution: I can throw off a government that has over and over again denied me my natural rights, and I don’t need anyone’s permission or constitutional authority.

[/quote]

So if, for example, one people were to attempt to unilaterally “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume their separate and equal station”, this is by your definition absolutely “throwing off a government” and absolutely not “leaving without anyone’s permission or authority”?

Don’t know what kind of razor you are using to split these hairs, but it certainly isn’t Occam’s. [/quote]

Conveniently, but erroneously, you left out a word in my description, bolded for ease this time around - formally leaving without anyone’s permission, as in, formal, as in, “officially sanctioned or recognized”.

As in, the controlling document/law recognizes a right to leave without seeking any agreement among other interested parties, as in what neoConfederates claim the Constitution provides, and what the Lisbon Treaty actually does provide for European Uniok members (with some caveats).

As in, I can leave without anyone’s permission, but it is lawful and sanctioned by the law, and doing so isn’t illegal.

Contrast to revolution, which is dissolving the bands with a government not through a formal, legal, sanctioned mechanism, but by revolt, because natural rights have been violated.

Secession ain’t revolution, and revolution ain’t secession.

Hope this helps.
[/quote]

So are you saying that Southern States revolted against Lincoln’s Federal Government, or did they lawfully secede? Clearly they felt their rights were being violated. If they revolted, then weren’t they were perfectly justified in looking to the first American revolt for precedent.

And conversely, if secession is by your definition legal and sanctioned by law, then do you mean to imply that the Southern States were acting within their legal rights in seceding? That were it not for South Carolina’s bad judgment in shelling Fort Sumter, that the Federal Government would have let the Confederacy go their merry, official, legal way unmolested? Seems to me that many people consider their secession an illegal act in and of itself. Perhaps even you, as I seem to recall.

644

There is no doubt that a moral right to secede exists. I can’t imagine a morality in which it doesn’t, at least. Does the wife of a man that beats her every night have the right to leave? I would say that she does.

Legally? I guess it depends on whether everything which is not forbidden is allowed, or everything which is not allowed is forbidden.

645

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
To clear up any confusion:

Secession: I can formally leave without anyone’s permission.

Consent: I can leave, but I have to reach agreement with other interested parties.

Revolution: I can throw off a government that has over and over again denied me my natural rights, and I don’t need anyone’s permission or constitutional authority.

[/quote]

So if, for example, one people were to attempt to unilaterally “dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume their separate and equal station”, this is by your definition absolutely “throwing off a government” and absolutely not “leaving without anyone’s permission or authority”?

Don’t know what kind of razor you are using to split these hairs, but it certainly isn’t Occam’s. [/quote]

Conveniently, but erroneously, you left out a word in my description, bolded for ease this time around - formally leaving without anyone’s permission, as in, formal, as in, “officially sanctioned or recognized”.

As in, the controlling document/law recognizes a right to leave without seeking any agreement among other interested parties, as in what neoConfederates claim the Constitution provides, and what the Lisbon Treaty actually does provide for European Uniok members (with some caveats).

As in, I can leave without anyone’s permission, but it is lawful and sanctioned by the law, and doing so isn’t illegal.

Contrast to revolution, which is dissolving the bands with a government not through a formal, legal, sanctioned mechanism, but by revolt, because natural rights have been violated.

Secession ain’t revolution, and revolution ain’t secession.

Hope this helps.
[/quote]

So are you saying that Southern States revolted against Lincoln’s Federal Government, or did they lawfully secede? Clearly they felt their rights were being violated. If they revolted, then weren’t they were perfectly justified in looking to the first American revolt for precedent.

And conversely, if secession is by your definition legal and sanctioned by law, then do you mean to imply that the Southern States were acting within their legal rights in seceding? That were it not for South Carolina’s bad judgment in shelling Fort Sumter, that the Federal Government would have let the Confederacy go their merry, official, legal way unmolested? Seems to me that many people consider their secession an illegal act in and of itself. Perhaps even you, as I seem to recall.[/quote]

Neither. The Southern states neither seceded nor revolted. They committed rebellion. To have seceded, there would have to have been a formal right to do so. There was not. To revolt, there must have been a justification, a denial of natural rights in some form or another. There was not. They had no right or justification to declare that the lawfully instituted government that presided over them no longer presided over them. As a result, the Southern states’ “secession” was illegal.

And no, I can’t think the federal government would’ve have just me them go, even if they hadn’t fired on Fort Sumter. There is no secession under the Constitution (absent a constitutional convention or similar and consent of the other interested parties). Once a state unilaterally declared they were no longer subject to the federal government, they were committing rebellion.

646

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Now I think I understand you. I’ve been using “secession” specifically in the context of how slave states that unilaterally seceded prior to the Civil War (no consent) used and defended that term. As distinguished from a form of lawful withdrawal, via a constitutional convention for the moat authoritative and cleanest way.

But the Tenth Amendment wouldn’t impact that power. Lawful withdrawal - whatever its form - would be a purely federal matter.
[/quote]

Okay, then I think the argument here was ultimately based on a difference in the use of semantics. I’m not a Confederate apologist, hence I do think Lincoln’s hand was forced in 1861 and that he had no other choice but to respond when Fort Sumter was fired upon.

Although not explicitly laid out anywhere in the original text, I do think there is, within the framework of the Constitution, an ability (arguably) for states to be able to withdraw (peaceably/amicably, legitimately, legally, or however one chooses to approach it) from the Union, but in the historical case of the American War Between the States, the Confederacy’s actions at that time weren’t congruous with whatever that legitimate process might actually be, hence the Union had no choice but to respond with force. In fact, Article I makes it pretty clear that “the Militia,” ultimately via command of the Executive branch, is to available to “suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Edit: My original post on this topic wasn’t very clear in articulating my position.
[/quote]

We agree on this. I believe there is a means of leaving the Union, through a process at the federal level, and most likely through a constitutional convention. (Mainly because the Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to admit new states, but is silent on Congress’ s authority to permit them to leave. That silence presumably means something, and that the process by which a state might leave can’t be left to basic legislation. Hence the need for something more authoritative.)

649

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

…They had no right or justification to declare that the lawfully instituted government that presided over them no longer presided over them. As a result, the Southern states’ “secession” was illegal…

[/quote]

Subjective. You may even be correct but it IS a subjective statement that absolutely had no consensus from 1789 - 1861, or afterward for that matter.

Now you will certainly vociferously argue it’s objectivity, but again, that argument arrives via the lens of “winning.”
[/quote]

And even further, from today’s perspective better arguments could have been made. However, from where they were, the most expedient and powerful justification was slavery. Ole Lincoln even somewhat recognizes the power of the slavery argument in the age by his constant denials that the fed had any such intentions. The north’s counterargument wasn’t that federal dictations about slavery weren’t justification, it was that the south was wrong that the north was going to ban it.

651

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

…They had no right or justification to declare that the lawfully instituted government that presided over them no longer presided over them. As a result, the Southern states’ “secession” was illegal…

[/quote]

Subjective. You may even be correct but it IS a subjective statement that absolutely had no consensus from 1789 - 1861, or afterward for that matter.

Now you will certainly vociferously argue it’s objectivity, but again, that argument arrives via the lens of “winning.”
[/quote]

Nope. Not subjective. I am either right, or I am wrong. Now, I greatly benefit from hindsight, whereas the people at the time did not. On some subjects, context certainly matters. But is not “subjectivity” on this subject - both sides simply cannot be right.

Great job sticking with the relativism theme, though.

652

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, as has been mentioned by me and others in past similar debates, Yankee states and statesmen argued passionately for the right to secede as well as Southerners, especially circa the War of 1812. NO objective consensus EVER existed.

TB’s opinions, shared by many over the last two centuries, no doubt, were only solidified after the North won an overwhelming victory and Sherman burned and raped the Southeast.[/quote]

More Postmodern Push.

The presence and arguments of the Hartford Convention folks doesn’t prove one way or another whether Southern states had the right to secede, or not - because they might have been…wait for it…wrong.

This tactic you have of saying “well, someone once thought differently, somebody once didnt agree with that, and means the idea you are espousing as ‘right’ is invalidated” is a dead end. It’s a (weak) appeal to authority. Just because somebody, somewhere along the way thought you could secede doesn’t amount to much - why? Because those people could have been wrong, too. . That’s why a raw appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

The debate centers around who is right, and who is wrong, since both sides can’t be right. As such, saying “someone once said they could secede” isn’t by itself an argument.

654

A fun fact about these forefathers of “secession” at the Hartford Convention - they didn’t adopt secession as part of their convention platform, and many believe that the Federalists’ demise as a party after the War of 1812 was in part because the theme of “these guys have secessionists in their ranks!” played very well (and was deliberately used by prevailing Democrats for electoral advantage).

But somebody, somewhere once said secession was ok, so the question remains open!

655

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, as has been mentioned by me and others in past similar debates, Yankee states and statesmen argued passionately for the right to secede as well as Southerners, especially circa the War of 1812. NO objective consensus EVER existed.

TB’s opinions, shared by many over the last two centuries, no doubt, were only solidified after the North won an overwhelming victory and Sherman burned and raped the Southeast.[/quote]

More Postmodern Push.

The presence and arguments of the Hartford Convention folks doesn’t prove one way or another whether Southern states had the right to secede, or not - because they might have been…wait for it…wrong.

This tactic you have of saying “well, someone once thought differently, somebody once didnt agree with that, and means the idea you are espousing as ‘right’ is invalidated” is a dead end. It’s a (weak) appeal to authority. Just because somebody, somewhere along the way thought you could secede doesn’t amount to much - why? Because those people could have been wrong, too. . That’s why a raw appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

The debate centers around who is right, and who is wrong, since both sides can’t be right. As such, saying “someone once said they could secede” isn’t by itself an argument.
[/quote]

Ahh…you twisteth what I sayeth.

Again, there is no settled political science here. Sorry, Al, but it ain’t so. Beat your “Denier!” drum all ye wish.[/quote]

Sorry, Push, this got old fast. I’m interested in discussing the merits, not your usual diversions into anything but taking a supported position. Thanks anyway.

657

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

This has, in other words, been largely the same old song for me (well, almost the same old song: I hadn’t heard the screeching lunacy that you get when you play it backwards). However, TB and DD made good points, and I think I’ll adjust my position to maintain that CSA leaders should not be celebrated (with public money/property) in their capacities as CSA leaders. Thus the moral filth that is and always has been (remember: we aren’t moral relativists) the CSA cause, meaning, legacy gets what it deserves, but we can still honor the few complicated men who redeemed themselves while refusing to do something so stupid as to celebrate them qua Confederates.

[/quote]

Just wanted to point out that stories like Forrest’s are largely compelling because of their previous involvements. If you remove reference to him as slave trader/CSA general/KKK leader, the ending doesn’t mean as much. The only way to celebrate the end of his life is to make sure you remember the beginning. The complexity is what makes history worth remembering.

658

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

This has, in other words, been largely the same old song for me (well, almost the same old song: I hadn’t heard the screeching lunacy that you get when you play it backwards). However, TB and DD made good points, and I think I’ll adjust my position to maintain that CSA leaders should not be celebrated (with public money/property) in their capacities as CSA leaders. Thus the moral filth that is and always has been (remember: we aren’t moral relativists) the CSA cause, meaning, legacy gets what it deserves, but we can still honor the few complicated men who redeemed themselves while refusing to do something so stupid as to celebrate them qua Confederates.

[/quote]

Just wanted to point out that stories like Forrest’s are largely compelling because of their previous involvements. If you remove reference to him as slave trader/CSA general/KKK leader, the ending doesn’t mean as much. The only way to celebrate the end of his life is to make sure you remember the beginning. The complexity is what makes history worth remembering.[/quote]

Sure, but you are not celebrating him for that from which he needed redemption – you’re celebrating him for the redemption itself. So in a way it’s almost exactly the opposite of a celebration of a Confederate qua Confederate. Forrest said, in the end, before a black crowd, “When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country. Let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment.” This is the literal, diametrical opposite of the CSA cause. In (exceptional) cases like this one, it’s not the CSA or participation in it that gets celebrated (which is not to say that anything should be forgotten).

659

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

This has, in other words, been largely the same old song for me (well, almost the same old song: I hadn’t heard the screeching lunacy that you get when you play it backwards). However, TB and DD made good points, and I think I’ll adjust my position to maintain that CSA leaders should not be celebrated (with public money/property) in their capacities as CSA leaders. Thus the moral filth that is and always has been (remember: we aren’t moral relativists) the CSA cause, meaning, legacy gets what it deserves, but we can still honor the few complicated men who redeemed themselves while refusing to do something so stupid as to celebrate them qua Confederates.

[/quote]

Just wanted to point out that stories like Forrest’s are largely compelling because of their previous involvements. If you remove reference to him as slave trader/CSA general/KKK leader, the ending doesn’t mean as much. The only way to celebrate the end of his life is to make sure you remember the beginning. The complexity is what makes history worth remembering.[/quote]

Sure, but you are not celebrating him for that from which he needed redemption – you’re celebrating him for the redemption itself. So in a way it’s almost exactly the opposite of a celebration of a Confederate qua Confederate. Forrest said, in the end, before a black crowd, “When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country. Let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment.” This is the literal, diametrical opposite of the CSA cause. In (exceptional) cases like this one, it’s not the CSA or participation in it that gets celebrated (which is not to say that anything should be forgotten).[/quote]

To celebrate the man is to celebrate his life IMO. That was the cause of a former CSA leader and general. That was the cause of a southerner. That was the cause of an American. The collapse of the CSA did not a break the continuity of the southern people. That is not the opposite of the CSA people, that is it’s evolution in the same continuous people.