posted
No-one is blaming Canada for the aftermath of Judeah Benjamin's schemes. It is rather a notation of how Canada was used (not in a "Gosh, wham-bam thank you ma'am" sense, but rather, "Gosh, there's a big Army here, let's go around it so we don't get shot").
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I just find it hard to believe that Omega agrees with me on something.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And it's one of the few times he's been right about something.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: * Did a state prior to the Civil War have a right to leave the Union?
The so-called "States' Rights" position is based on the logically invalid position that the states themselves were the units of authority and decision-making, as opposed to individuals. This is opposed to the most fundamental logic of the founding fathers, encapsulated so clearly and so succinctly when they said:
"We The People . . ."
Similarly, someone asked if the colonies had a right to claim their liberty from the crown. Of course the colonies didn't . . . the people, however, did. Rights are not granted by anyone . . . they exist, but we must claim them. No government can do that for us, and, historically, governments are seldom interested in doing so.
quote:* Was the reason for the war "State's Rights" or "Slavery"?
The reason for war was a fundamental disagreement between the North and the South across almost every spectrum . . . the North's industrialization versus the South's agrarian society . . . the North's gradual acceptance of the idea that all men were indeed created equal, compared to the South's slavery and aristocratic leanings.
Most other nations had already recognized the illogic of slavery . . . but the South still had a use for it, and their need blinded them to the unethical nature of their position. Their desperation sent them scurrying for ways out like the States' Rights position.
And of course, with the election of Lincoln, they realized their back was against the wall.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I could see the position of "States' Rights" as logically invalid, too - but from another point of view. Rights must be taken, that I agree with. But they don't exist independently of the act of taking. And the taking must be combined with the act of giving, or at least conceding, or it's meaningless in practice. And practice is all that matters.
In this case, the rights of the States and of their inhabitants were determined by the Constitution and the Federal organization (even if somewhat virtual) enforcing the said Constitution. Fundamentally, the rights, and the right to define and perhaps alter or revoke them, then belong to the Federal level that deals out this magnanimity - as long as this level retains the clout to withdraw the magnanimity whenever it wants to.
In short, "X saying that Y has the right" often is just saying that "X has the right to give Y the right". Or to withdraw it.
quote: This is opposed to the most fundamental logic of the founding fathers, encapsulated so clearly and so succinctly when they said:
"We The People . . ."
Similarly, someone asked if the colonies had a right to claim their liberty from the crown. Of course the colonies didn't . . . the people, however, did.
Of course, we have to define 'We The people...' in the context that the 'founding fathers' gave it; white men. Remember, more African Americans and Native Americans, along with many white colonists fought for the UK and Empire. I think I read somewhere that about the same number of colonists supported us (at least initially) as did the rebels. Now, as I understand your position any people have the right to overthrow their government if they do not have liberty, rights, etc. It's kinda ironic that the whole ethos and idea of the British Empire at the time was liberty (for Brits at least). You guys stole it off us!! Also, in a way the Confeds were being deprived of (what they say as) a freedom. The freedom to keep slaves. Also they believed that southern culture and political domination (look at the number of Southern presidents) would be destroyed by the Norths increasing population and industrialisation; they believed they would be oppressed. Or at least the more powerful landowners believed they would lose their political clout.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
"Freedom to keep slaves" is on the same order as "freedom to punch people in the nose". They believed it was all right to own slaves, and wanted to base their society on that idea. Nobody (at least nobody here) is saying that that's a God-given right.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, but that's a different concept of slavery. The slavery as approved by God was more like setting POWs to forced labor, then releasing 'em all every so often, which is a heck of a lot nicer than even many countries today are to their POWs. That slavery was hardly the insidious race-based institution we had here.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
