Civil War Dead Babies so we can all stop hijacking threads over it

Status
Not open for further replies.
Farm Boy said:
I guess we could go with functional features, that might be amusing. Did the CSA and the USA have shared governments during the Civil War? Did they have a linked voting system, a linked taxation system, a linked legislative/executive/judiciary? Did they have a common Army and citizenry? A shared..uh.. zeitgeist? Sounds like they were probably functionally pretty separate during the Civil War. The only really compelling argument you have otherwise(imho of course) is that we can quibble over what nation means. If it means your former countrymen and the British and the Germans and whoever think you are a nation, then sure, they were independent but not a nation. The answer to the question changes over a period of years, obviously, as the Rebellion is defeated and the victors impose the answer via lethal force.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I will quibble over the semantics of "nation". :p

But there's a time and place for that and this is neither the time nor place for it.
 
madviking said:
Well, yes, I will quibble over the semantics of "nation". :p

But there's a time and place for that and this is neither the time nor place for it.
Click to expand...

Ok, now I'm actually confused. Too many steps between the definition of nation and dead babies?
 
Traitorfish said:
What's interesting is that, as much as GhostWriter protests both the depth of his opposition to slavery and his belief in the right to rebellion, we never hear him say anything about John Brown, a man who you would think embodies both of these principles. Instead, we seem to find that the only possible route of opposition to the greatest evil in American history is through plodding constitutional reform- and this despite the fact that armed secession is a perfectly acceptable response to the election of a president you don't like. Funny, that.
Click to expand...
GhostWriter16 said:
Well, I don't know whether or not he killed anyone who was not a slave-owner (Simply "Supporting" slavery is not enough reason to be killed, you at least have to own one) but I am generally fine with his approach. Unlike Lincoln, he didn't invade an entire country;)
Click to expand...

We actually had a good conversation about John Brown in one of last month's derails, I think. John Brown didn't kill any slave-owners, and he perfectly intended to instigate a massive slave revolt to overthrow the entire Southern way of life. I guess we are condemning Lincoln solely because he had the means and the South shot first against him, since we are apparently celebrating the memory of a man who didn't have the means, seized an armory, and failed to free any slaves whatsoever despite his intentions of creating a civil war.

Crezth said:
It's not self-determination you presumptuous cock. It's slavery. 1/3rd of the population of the south had no say in what happened to the country they were being held hostage in, and the south was determined to keep things that way. Say what you will about Lincoln, but what he did - and this is fact - is free the slaves. Maybe he didn't set out to do it. Maybe he was later reincarnated as Adolf Hitler. But those are the consequences of his actions and they are unmistakably good.

The CSA was an illegitimate government and the antithesis of the libertarian case. It was a powerful centralized state devoted entirely to the maintenance of what most libertarians agree is the worst evil ever contrived by man. If you seriously care about liberty, you can't look at the CSA and think anything but "good riddance." The USA may not be perfect, but at least slavery is officially outlawed anymore.
Click to expand...
Farm Boy said:
I guess we could go with functional features, that might be amusing. Did the CSA and the USA have shared governments during the Civil War? Did they have a linked voting system, a linked taxation system, a linked legislative/executive/judiciary? Did they have a common army and citizenry? A shared..uh.. zeitgeist? Sounds like they were probably functionally pretty separate during the Civil War. The only really compelling argument you have otherwise(imho of course) is that we can quibble over what nation means. If it means your former countrymen and the British and the Germans and whoever think you are a nation, then sure, they were independent but not a nation. The answer to the question changes over a period of years, obviously, as the Rebellion is defeated and the victors impose the answer via lethal force.
Click to expand...

Not only agreeing with Crezth and madv here, but I note with a bit of irony the government the South decided to institute during the conflict was virtually identical to the Union they were rebelling against, save for a few important details: their constitution explicitly forbid individual states from outlawing slavery and gave the president a line-item veto and a six-year term (although term-limited to one). If anything, the CSA's government reduced states' rights and championed a more powerful executive branch, all in the name of slave-ocrats.

What I don't understand from all these derails and talking about secession more generally is why people think there must be bright-line rules about this, or why because things aren't explicitly written certain meanings are implicitly present. This is a rule-of-reason issue for me: it was about slavery, and one faction forming a government based on an utterly Orwellian definition of freedom and liberty to systematically oppress a minority (although it would be anachronistic to call it such). Cue rant about bright-line rules lawyering and immorality.
 
GhostWriter16 said:
Well, I don't know whether or not he killed anyone who was not a slave-owner (Simply "Supporting" slavery is not enough reason to be killed, you at least have to own one) but I am generally fine with his approach. Unlike Lincoln, he didn't invade an entire country;)
Click to expand...
And you really think that a man who gave his life in the fight against slavery would be much-impressed with your affection for the slaver's saltire?


madviking said:
Yes, this is completely true, but to suggest the CSA was a fully independent nation is disingenuous. It was a quasi-state, mired somewhere between being part of the US and being a fully independent nation. However, the courts made it clear it was much closer to the former than the latter.
Click to expand...
I'm fascinated to discover that the Soviet Union wasn't founded until 1933.
 
madviking said:
Founding is one thing; achieving wide-spread recognition is another.
Click to expand...
If the reality of statehood is determined by international recognition, then a state can't be considered really-existing until it achieves that recognition. Otherwise, it would imply that reality is a property that can be achieved retroactively, which is at least on the face of it ridiculous.

(PS - What is the significance of 1933?)
Click to expand...
It's the date when the US recognised them. A bit of an arbitrary line to drawn, but it's about the point when you can safely say that it had achieved effective international recognition.
 
GhostWriter16 said:
Well, I don't know whether or not he killed anyone who was not a slave-owner (Simply "Supporting" slavery is not enough reason to be killed, you at least have to own one) but I am generally fine with his approach. Unlike Lincoln, he didn't invade an entire country;)
Click to expand...

(emphasis mine)

You support terrorism?
 
Traitorfish said:
It's the date when the US recognised them. A bit of an arbitrary line to drawn, but it's about the point when you can safely say that it had achieved effective international recognition.
Click to expand...

I'd probably peg the date at June 1923 (end of Russian Civil War) as an effective date for the establishment of the USSR. At that point, no one was actively warring for the Tsarist government nor against the Soviet government. So I think it's safe to say that their nationhood was secure at that point. Clearly, in the instance of the ACW, no such peace was signed between the USA and the CSA thus the CSA never truly held nationhood, imo.

Consider the US for a second. War was declared in 1775 on the United Kingdom. We declared independence in July 1776. The Articles of Confederation (first national government) were ratified in 1781. The Peace of Paris was signed in 1783.

What would, in your view, constitute the "founding" of the US?
 
madviking said:
i'd probably peg the date at june 1923 (end of russian civil war) as an effective date for the establishment of the ussr. At that point, no one was actively warring for the tsarist government nor against the soviet government. So i think it's safe to say that their nationhood was secure at that point. Clearly, in the instance of the acw, no such peace was signed between the usa and the csa thus the csa never truly held nationhood, imo.

Consider the us for a second. War was declared in 1775 on the united kingdom. We declared independence in july 1776. The articles of confederation (first national government) were ratified in 1781. The peace of paris was signed in 1883.

What would, in your view, constitute the "founding" of the us?
Click to expand...


1783.
 
Traitorfish said:
I support terrorism against slavers.
Click to expand...

Sure, so do I, with the specific intent being to free the slaves.

I don't support also attacking people that don't have slaves that happen to live in nations that allow the practice, nor do I support annexing independent nations and making them join yours simply because they have slaves.

I even more strongly oppose defending people 150 years later for forcibly annexing territory because apparently the nation had slaves and therefore had no right to exist, nevermind the fact that the annexing nation's leader, Saint Abraham Lincoln, even admitted that his goal was never to free the slaves.

At least the "Darn traitors" people are honest, although they support mass murder for their own political goals and so would gladly support a man as evil and murderous as Lincoln if given the chance.
 
madviking said:
I'd probably peg the date at June 1923 (end of Russian Civil War) as an effective date for the establishment of the USSR. At that point, no one was actively warring for the Tsarist government nor against the Soviet government. So I think it's safe to say that their nationhood was secure at that point. Clearly, in the instance of the ACW, no such peace was signed between the USA and the CSA thus the CSA never truly held nationhood, imo.

Consider the US for a second. War was declared in 1775 on the United Kingdom. We declared independence in July 1776. The Articles of Confederation (first national government) were ratified in 1781. The Peace of Paris was signed in 1783.

What would, in your view, constitute the "founding" of the US?
Click to expand...
The individual colonies were waging war as organised political entities as early as 1775, and I'd say that qualifies them for statehood. I don't know exactly when we can identify the "United States" to come into existence, but that just reflects the fact that the reality was a messy process of confederation and re-confederation. It's not always (in fact, very rarely) possible to pose things in terms of ON/OFF, or to identify changes as occurring on-such-and-such date.

The only reasonable way I can see to identify statehood is to identify the capacity to act as a state. The CSA spent four years waging a war, levying taxes, enforcing laws, maintaining infrastructure, and generally doing all the things that you'd expect a state to be doing. To deny it that status just because the North didn't think it should be allowed to do those things seems seems to me very little more than arbitrary.

Zack said:
GW specifically said he supports his approach, which is terrorism.
Click to expand...
His approach was terrorism-against-slavers. You can't de-contextualise it without stripping it of meaning.
 
Traitorfish said:
The individual colonies were waging war as organised political entities as early as 1775, and I'd say that qualifies them for statehood. I don't know exactly when we can identify the "United States" to come into existence, but that just reflects the fact that the reality was a messy process of confederation and re-confederation. It's not always (in fact, very rarely) possible to pose things in terms of ON/OFF, or to identify changes as occurring on-such-and-such date.

The only reasonable way I can see to identify statehood is to identify the capacity to act as a state. The CSA spent four years waging a war, levying taxes, enforcing laws, maintaining infrastructure, and generally doing all the things that you'd expect a state to be doing. To deny it that status just because the North didn't think it should be allowed to do those things seems seems to me very little more than arbitrary.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that the "United States" didn't exist until the ratification of the Constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were technically "United" but didn't really act like it.

The CSA was clearly a state however, and I see your definition as a fundamentally decent one to work with.

My question to you is, if you support anarchy, (I don't, but I'm not all that far off at times:p) how can you POSSIBLY support Lincoln in his goal to suppress secession? I mean, I know you don't worship at his feet like everyone else here does, but you still seem to support him, at least over CSA independence. Now, maybe you think the expansion of Federal power (As an anarchist I don't see how you can hold this position, and doubly not as one who thinks capitalism is basically a form of slavery as well, but I'll roll with it) was a small enough price to pay to free the slaves, but since this was never really Lincoln's goal, and preserving the Union and crushing political dissent were, I can't see how you could possibly disagree with my assessment of Lincoln was a racist, mass-murdering tyrant.

His approach was terrorism-against-slavers. You can't de-contextualise it without stripping it of meaning.
Click to expand...

Zack is well-known for taking EVERYTHING out of context.
 
GhostWriter16 said:
My question to you is, if you support anarchy, (I don't, but I'm not all that far off at times:p) how can you POSSIBLY support Lincoln in his goal to suppress secession? I mean, I know you don't worship at his feet like everyone else here does, but you still seem to support him, at least over CSA independence. Now, maybe you think the expansion of Federal power (As an anarchist I don't see how you can hold this position, and doubly not as one who thinks capitalism is basically a form of slavery as well, but I'll roll with it) was a small enough price to pay to free the slaves, but since this was never really Lincoln's goal, and preserving the Union and crushing political dissent were, I can't see how you could possibly disagree with my assessment of Lincoln was a racist, mass-murdering tyrant.
Click to expand...
I don't "support Lincoln". Equally, I don't oppose Lincoln. I don't support the expansion of Federal power, I don't support the contraction of Federal power. I don't support Federal power staying exactly as it is, or being turned completely inside out. I reject that paradigm entirely.

Anarchy cannot just be the contraction of the state to the point of nothingness. Even if that were possible- it is not- it wouldn't change anything, it would just produce a redistribution of the functions of the state. Anarchy is the abolition of the existing social order, and Lincoln was no more or less of an impediment to that than anyone else of his era.

Shrieking declarations of bloodthirst tyranny may be satisfying, but they're basically vacuous. They don't tell us anything. We don't learn what Lincoln did, why he did it, or what resulted from it, we just know that you didn't like it.
 
But he didn't kill any slavers (and even if he did, since when is it okay to commit atrocities just because the target is contemptible?). The only people who died in the raids were civilians, military, and John Brown's raiders. No slaveowners.
 
Ziggy Stardust said:
Remember how annoyed I was about you being a nice guy/good sport and how that conflicted with your annoying statements? Well, I'm not annoyed anymore. :)
Click to expand...

You need to understand where I'm coming from first:)

I try to be a nice person, at least to those that give me the same respect in return. I'd like to be able to give the same courtesy to those that are total jerks to me, but I'll be honest, I don't. I'm frequently a jerk in response. I've only claimed there was one person to walk the earth that was perfect, and not only was it not GW16, but I also recognize that I have many, many planks in my own eye, and being a total jerk at times is one of them.

That said, while I do desire to be nice to people, I don't feel the need to be the same to their ideas, particularly when they are laughably irrational. And I don't feel the need to be nice to political figures. Because unlike most of you, and myself, who I think are legitimately honest people trying to find the right answers or what have you, I actually do think politicians are for the most part evil. Power corrupts them, they steal huge amounts of money and kill people. I only have respect for a very small number of them. And its not just "Not following the party line", that's a start, but its not enough. Opposing the party line on trivial issues while generally supporting the expansion of state power still makes me think they are evil in my book.

And I have no qualms about calling evil ideas evil. That I consider to be completely appropriate. And claiming that killing 600 thousand people because "Treason" and "Preserving the Union" is bloodthirsty warmongering. I don't even understand how anyone can possibly defend that opportunity cost. Yes, slavery did end and maybe that made it worth it, but since that wasn't Lincoln's goal, I don't see how anyone can possibly support him, unless, again, nationalism is worth more to them than self-determination and the protection of innocent human life.

Many people here are saying exactly that. So sorry, they are supporting evil. They may be decent people in real life (All the more reason the Presidency CREATES evil) but they are still supporting mass murder in this case. And I have to call that evil. If that offends, you, sorry, but its what's right, and it needs to be said, so I'm going to say it:sad:

Traitorfish said:
I don't "support Lincoln". Equally, I don't oppose Lincoln. I don't support the expansion of Federal power, I don't support the contraction of Federal power. I don't support Federal power staying exactly as it is, or being turned completely inside out. I reject that paradigm entirely.

Anarchy cannot just be the contraction of the state to the point of nothingness. Even if that were possible- it is not- it wouldn't change anything, it would just produce a redistribution of the functions of the state. Anarchy is the abolition of the existing social order, and Lincoln was no more or less of an impediment to that than anyone else of his era.

Shrieking declarations of bloodthirst tyranny may be satisfying, but they're basically vacuous. They don't tell us anything. We don't learn what Lincoln did, why he did it, or what resulted from it, we just know that you didn't like it.
Click to expand...

At least state governments and secession make whatever reform you're going for easier, since you have to convince a smaller number of people. Thus an anarchist should, at least temporarily, support secession movements.

And I must confess, the idea that you aren't "For or against war" simply because a smaller state is still a state is stupid. Its like saying that since your an anarchist you have no view on North Korea simply because Switzerland is also a state and thus also evil. there's something called "Lesser evils."

But he didn't kill any slavers (and even if he did, since when is it okay to commit atrocities just because the target is contemptible?). The only people who died in the raids were civilians, military, and John Brown's raiders. No slaveowners.
Click to expand...

If it were a former slaver, I'd agree with you, they are no longer committing an aggression and so attacking them is not committing self-defense but retribution, which only the courts should be involved with if anyone. However, if the slaver is still in the practice of owning slaves, than killing them is in fact a defense of the slave.

Its actually a useless endeavor, since someone else will just end up owning the slave, but its not intristically evil, because it is directly killing in defense of the slave.

That's not what Brown did anyway, however, and so that's besides the point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Birdjaguar
[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: Eight
320 321 322
Replies
6K
Views
328K
lymond
lymond
Birdjaguar
  • Locked
[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread
64 65 66
Replies
1K
Views
89K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
C
The forever war problem
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
msw1
M
Samson
  • Poll Poll
Consciousness: what it is, where it comes from, do machines can have it and why do we care?
18 19 20
Replies
389
Views
24K
amadeus
amadeus
EgonSpengler
Tourist-spotting, visitors from (seemingly) other worlds, etc.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Valka D'Ur
Valka D'Ur
Back
Top Bottom