The Real Problem with the US Pledge of Allegiance

[Tee Kay]

A hungry ghost reborn in the hellish realms and then force-fed the United States Constitution, making him vomit violently for eons and eons?

 

[cybrxkhan]

A hungry ghost reborn in the hellish realms and then force-fed the United States Constitution, making him vomit violently for eons and eons?

Very apt, my friend. Force-fed the Constitution and then vomitting it out, only to be force-fed it again. Karma works in funny ways.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Then you are delusional.

Seriously, you are comparing the Confederacy to Nazi Germany? I will remind you that I never compared Lincoln to Hitler, even if the word "Tyrant" is accurate to describe both. Lincoln was a fairly ordinary tyrant as far as it goes, while Hitler was pretty truly exceptional.

If you seriously claim that the CSA was as bad as Nazi Germany, you aren't worth talking to because you are an absolute moron.

Personal attacks =/= good debating.

I'm not going to quote and respond bit-by-bit to the rest of the post because I'll talk to you on your own level: this is absolute nonsense. You cannot wave away the crime of racially-instituted ownership of other people, and so long as we are being absolutely frank, war was justified in order to achieve the end of slavery, and anyone who says otherwise is either A. not thinking clearly or B. motivated by some kind of racial revanchism.

The CSA is absolutely comparable to Nazi Germany, if only inferior because whereas Nazi Germany was supremely competent, capable and ruthless, by comparison the CSA was almost as bad with the added negative of being one of the worst-run rebellions in history.

 

[Formaldehyde]

At least don't strawman my position. Lincoln's tyranny is not because he freed the slaves.

The fact that he started a war, his suspensions of habeus corpus, his restrictions on freedom of speech, acts of terror like Sherman's March (Which predominantly affected non-slaveholders), martial law against secessionists in Maryland, and, this is perhaps the strongest point, that he was willing to let Southerners keep their slaves as long as they stayed in the Union. Lincoln didn't even care if Southerners infringed on the rigthts of slaves, as long as they stayed under the umbrella of his empire.

Of course, as an authoritarian I expect you will like Lincoln. Any anti-secessionist, nationalist, neo-con, or authoritairna would. But there is no libertarian defense of Lincoln. To anyone who values liberty, Lincoln was a tyrant.

I don't think that is true in the least. I consider myself to be about as non-authoritiarian as I can possibly be without being an anarchist.

It was a civil war. Many elected representatives and members of the US military broke their oaths and become traitors to their own country because they wanted to be able to continue to own human beings. They felt threatened by the election of Lincoln much in the same way that some feel threatened today by the election of Obama and seceded as a result. One cannot expect that certain temporary restrictions to freedom and liberty were not inevitable under those circumstances.

I really don't care in the least how so many conservative libertarians view Lincoln. I think they do a great disservice to what is likely the greatest president this country has ever had. It was an extraordinary time and it called for extraordinary measures. While I do not agree with everything that Lincoln did, such as the imprisonment of journalists who were advocating sedition, I think he had more than enough reason to do most of the acts which are now deemed to be so tyrannical by some.

And I'm certainly not alone in thinking that way:

A Libertarian Defense of Lincoln

For all his faults, missteps, and, on several occasions, blatant abuses of his power, Lincoln is a president to be respected, and whom I personally revere. While he was no libertarian himself, in toto, he did more for American freedom as president than any man before or since. He fought against an illegitimate government bent on and created for the perpetuation of human bondage--and he won. It is an accomplishment, I think, too often lost on contemporary Americans.

The Civil War has been over for over 150 years now. The mostly good guys won and the really bad guys lost. I think it is more than time to finally put it behind us and move on.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think that is true in the least. I consider myself to be about as non-authoritiarian as I can possibly be without being an anarchist.

It was a civil war. Many soldiers and elected representatives broke their oaths and become traitors to their own country. One cannot expect that certain temporary restrictions to freedom and liberty were not inevitable under those circumstances.

I really don't care in the least how so many conservative libertarians view Lincoln. I think they do a great disservice to what is likely the greatest president this country has ever had. It was an extraordinary time and it called for extraordinary measures. While I do not agree with everything that Lincoln did, such as the imprisonment of journalists who were advocating sedition, I think he had more than enough reason to do most of the acts which are now deemed to be so tyrannical by a few.

You don't have to be an anarchist to support the human right of secession

A lot of the policies you regularly (And justifiably) complain about can be traced back to Lincoln.

Greatest President we've ever had? Only for an authoritarian. That "Only a few" consider him tyrannical is just poor education.

There was a fairly easy solution rather than restricting freedom... letting the South secede.

Its a very simple solution.

Here's the thing Form, war is the health of the state. You don't have to be an anarchist to oppose violent wars in order to stop secession.

 

[Lord of Elves]

You don't have to be an anarchist to support the human right of secession

A lot of the policies you regularly (And justifiably) complain about can be traced back to Lincoln.

Greatest President we've ever had? Only for an authoritarian. That "Only a few" consider him tyrannical is just poor education.

There was a fairly easy solution rather than restricting freedom... letting the South secede.

Its a very simple solution.

Here's the thing Form, war is the health of the state. You don't have to be an anarchist to oppose violent wars in order to stop secession.

Secession is treason, and it isn't a right accorded to you in the Constitution. The Confederacy and the amoral, self-serving and hypocritical values it was based on belong back in their grave.

And finally, while I'm at it, I don't particularly care about the rights, comfort or happiness of slaveholders.

 

[Gucumatz]

Perhaps I believe in a central power power - I don't believe the current state has enough of it, but I digress.

Secession is treason - no way to go around it. If you support treason, then I admit I sort of doubt your interest in the success of the US

I don't view Lincoln as our greatest president ever, no, but the South was not dealt with strongly enough after the war mostly because of the death of Lincoln. Had he been left alive, the south would have been dealt with in a firmer manner and perhaps we could have seen a stronger subsequent union.
=======

I couldn't be in any less support of talks of succession be they from Aaron Burr, to Texans without a sense of loyalty, to Confederate diehards. Just my personal opinion though - but I find this poll largely ridiculous. Indivisibility is a core principle of the union. I would prefer leaving God in there too - but it doesn't pass the Lemon Test and probably should be removed. But as long as its not made into a contentious issue I can see God staying in the pledge for a very long time because the now establish tradition, and I am glad for that.

My favorite presidents in history probably have been the most Realpolitik presidents and protecting of American direction - (Meaning Polk, LBJ, Nixon, etc.) Lincoln probably hastened the Civil War to a degree but he did his duty in keeping the Union together.

 

[ZeletDude]

There was a fairly easy solution rather than restricting freedom... letting the South secede.

People who owned other people should have no rights, or freedom.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There is no inherent right to secede before the US government becomes tyrannical. That has never happened first, and it it likely never will. A period of civil war following a clearly illegal secession doesn't count. The Constitution even mentions that habeas corpus can be suspended under such extreme and unusual conditions.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And finally, while I'm at it, I don't particularly care about the rights, comfort or happiness of slaveholders.

I don't either. I care about the rights of everyone else, in both countries.

If we could have waved a magic wand and killed all the slaveholders without destroying the lives, liberties, or money of anyone else, fine.

That's not what we did.

Very few if any of the people who were killed were the plantation owners that were the real evil part of the south.

People who owned other people should have no rights, or freedom.

Again, I have no problem with this, but it was innocent southerners who didn't own any slaves, and innocent northerners from that matter, that suffered.

There is no inherent right to secede before the US government becomes tyrannical. That has never happened first, and it it likely never will. A period of civil war following a clearly illegal secession doesn't count. The Constitution even mentions that habeas corpus can be suspended under such extreme and unusual conditions.

I see no reason the government being tyrannical should be an inherent requirement (Although, would you not agree with me that we've become something of a soft quasi-tyranny since 9/11?). But even if we disagree on that, the fact that Lincoln acted like a tyrant throughout the war is hard to seriously deny.

You are right that the constitution does allow suspencion of habeus corupus in extreme conditions (I think the constitution is wrong on this BTW, but it is there) but only when the public safety requires it. While "Make peace" is still an option, that's frankly not good enough reason. But this is what I was saying "War is the health of the state." Had Lincoln not waged war, he would never have lost North Carolina or Virginia, nevermind worrying of getting surrounded via Maryland secession. Maryland would never have even been thinking about seceding had Lincoln not waged brutal war against the South.

I don't see how you, as a self-proclaimed non-authoritarian, can possibly support a Union war against the Confederacy which predominately occurred on Confederate territory.

There are numerous issues that can separate legitimate non-authoritarians but war is not one of them.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not a moral absolutist.

It absolutely depends

how does that deny someone having a morally superior claim?

 

[Zack]

Why is secession morally superior to ending slavery

 

[Berzerker]

they're separate matters, but ~600,000 people died and many more were physically and/or emotionally traumatized. Would you kill a million people to end slavery?

 

[Zack]

Huh? A war isn't a genocide. It's not like 600k people were hanged.

 

[Zelig]

how does that deny someone having a morally superior claim?

I don't recognize the claim as being morally superior.

 

[ace99]

they're separate matters, but ~600,000 people died and many more were physically and/or emotionally traumatized. Would you kill a million people to end slavery?

Yes. By 1860 the slave population was 4 million. Would I kill 1 million so that 4 million could live free? Yes.

 

[civver_764]

Yes. By 1860 the slave population was 4 million. Would I kill 1 million so that 4 million could live free? Yes.

There are over 10 million people in slavery right now. Would you kill 2.5 million people to free them all?

 

[Berzerker]

Huh? A war isn't a genocide. It's not like 600k people were hanged.

600k died - and millions maimed in various ways... that was the price for ending slavery

I don't recognize the claim as being morally superior.

what claim?

Yes. By 1860 the slave population was 4 million. Would I kill 1 million so that 4 million could live free? Yes.

the dead will honor your sacrifice

 

[Zelig]

what claim?

The one about moral superiority you posted.

 

[ace99]

There are over 10 million people in slavery right now. Would you kill 2.5 million people to free them all?

Absolutely unless you're talking about your wage slavery thing.