The Real Problem with the US Pledge of Allegiance

[Zack]

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

Exactly how does this demonstrate the moral integrity of secession? That's what led to all those dead people.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why is secession morally superior to ending slavery

Irrelevant since that's not why Lincoln went to war. Plus, war is intristically authoritarian, brutal, and wrong.

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

It would be wrong to kill one innocent person to kill them all, which most of the Confederates were innocent.

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

He meant illegal slavery AFAIK. It would be in the billions if he meant wage slavery

Exactly how does this demonstrate the moral integrity of secession? That's what led to all those dead people.

No, tyrant Lincoln's war did.

 

[Berzerker]

The one about moral superiority you posted.

I didn't post one, you said something about not being a moral absolutist as if that means no one can have a morally superior claim.

Exactly how does this demonstrate the moral integrity of secession? That's what led to all those dead people.

Secession and slavery are different matters, the former is justifiable and the latter is not... Y'all would kill a million people to end slavery circa 1861?

really?

 

[Zelig]

I didn't post one, you said something about not being a moral absolutist as if that means no one can have a morally superior claim.

That's not what that post meant.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I didn't post one, you said something about not being a moral absolutist as if that means no one can have a morally superior claim.



Secession and slavery are different matters, the former is justifiable and the latter is not... Y'all would kill a million people to end slavery circa 1861?

really?

Other than me, you, and Civver, pretty much everyone else in this thread say "Yeah, pretty much."

Its a total lack of ethics.

 

[Berzerker]

That's not what that post meant.

fine, what did it mean?

 

[Zelig]

fine, what did it mean?

I don't remember, and this thread is all-around too awful for me to go back to read any of it.

 

[Berzerker]

not even your own posts?

two people have competing moral claims - the superior claim is a "right".

 

[Zelig]

My posts in this thread are pretty bad, I didn't have much content to work with.

If two people have competing moral claims, and there's no context, neither of them have worthwhile claims or any rights.

 

[_random_]

No, tyrant Lincoln's war did.

BS. Even if the South's actions were justified, and they totally weren't, they knew exactly what they were getting into when they chose to secede. It was a declaration of war in everything but name. Nobody expected Lincoln to lie back and accept division in the Union. They knew their actions would provoke war, albeit not on the scale that developed. There's no way to absolve them of this.

 

[History_Buff]

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

That was not an option open to him. By the time Lincoln took office, several southern states were flagrantly violating the law as set out in the US Constitution. I can see two big ones purely in the Preamble and Article 1. The defense to that of course is that these states might not be bound by the Constitution after the declarations of secession. But there is absolutely no legal precedent for that in US law. It is simply not a power that the States could have, despite your nonsensical interpretation of the 10th Amendment (which for the record is not supported by Constitutional scholars).

Now, Lincoln's job is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It's right there in the oath. When faced with an insurrection in clear violation of the Constitution, his only reasonable course of action would be to defeat said insurrection.


And that's without even mentioning the moral abomination that was the CSA. It's a lot like Nazi Germany. The rationale was not to defeat them to prevent them from carrying out their terrible evils. That was just a happy coincidence.

 

[Berzerker]

My posts in this thread are pretty bad, I didn't have much content to work with.

If two people have competing moral claims, and there's no context, neither of them have worthwhile claims or any rights.

if you cant see which claim is superior, maybe neither one is - but rights are based on those competing claims that "are" superior".

 

[Siderealex]

So how often does Ghost go on these bizarre rants about Lincoln?

 

[Zack]

So how often does Ghost go on these bizarre rants about Lincoln?

In the time since you've asked that question, he's already produced six more rants about the tyranny of Lincoln and the suave nature of Ron Paul.

 

[Siderealex]

In the time since you've asked that question, he's already produced six more rants about the tyranny of Lincoln and the suave nature of Ron Paul.

My gag reflex knows no bound. Wonder if we can get the Key of Awesome folk to do a Lincoln vs Ghostwriter rap.