Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really because the next question is, state sovereignty to do what? Maintain slavery!
Blinders----ON.
What do states' rights advocates fight about today? State education. Abortion. Drinking age. Driving speed. States' rights are and were about a lot more than slavery. Think about it.
From Lee's view (after much personal debate) he WAS defending the Constitution and fighting to maintain a freedom he felt was the original intent of the Founders.
Well instead of debating himself perhaps instead of trying to divine the intent of the framers he should have read about how such disputes are resolved within a representative democracy.
Quote:
His love of Virginia figured in very strongly with his decision to join the Confederacy, but his premise for doing so was that he felt the rights of the states were being violated in disregard of the Constitution.
His faulty reasoning doesn't make him any less a traitor than anyone else charged with the offense and Lee was charged with the offense of treason and without the sympathies of both Johnson and Grant he should have been tried for that offense.
Quote:
It's easy to sit out here 150 years away and try to hold Victorian people to our standards and views but that puts a skewed view of what the facts really were on the issue.
Oh, spare me! My views are hardly different from those expressed during the period in question.
Quote:
It's a simple thing to call Confederates "traitors" but they felt they were being dictated to in violation of their rights.
Their rights! The right to own another one human being as if they were nothing more than livestock? That right? Are you arguing that their abstract right to be "free of Big Government" trumped the most basic of all human rights that; all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Is it your argument that we should look sympathetically upon these poor southerners because they were denied to right to keep other humans slaves?
Quote:
Both sides felt they were in the right. To judge the Confederates by modern views, simply because they lost in the end, wins no historical arguments. We should ,instead, examine this from both ends without harsh judgmentalism. Thus , maybe, such a thing won't happen again and divide the nation in such a deep way for so long a period of time.
Is moral relativism an anathema to conservatives? I ask the question because I find it exceedingly interesting that it seems to be perfectly fine to apply arguments of moral relativism to the Civil war but not to Nazi and Japanese aggression, Vietnamese struggles for self-determination or jihad as practiced by Islamic extremist.
Why do rebels during the Civil War get accorded such a privilege?
What do states' rights advocates fight about today? State education. Abortion. Drinking age. Driving speed. States' rights are and were about a lot more than slavery. Think about it.
Fights? 618,000 dead? 100 years defiance to basic human rights! Is this what you are equating with state education, drinking ages and driving speeds? The denial of the most basic principle of a democratic society, dishonoring the will of the people to free choose their national leadership?
Well instead of debating himself perhaps instead of trying to divine the intent of the framers he should have read about how such disputes are resolved within a representative democracy.
Right, because when a President gets elected that wasn't even on the ballot in your state, you really feel represented by that government. When another region of the country can dictate to you what the laws should be within your state, some people might conclude that the representative democracy isn't all that representative.
His faulty reasoning doesn't make him any less a traitor than anyone else charged with the offense and Lee was charged with the offense of treason and without the sympathies of both Johnson and Grant he should have been tried for that offense.
Was he charged with the offense of treason? I can't find that. He was stripped of his citizenship. And it was President Gerald Ford who restored that citizenship.
Oh, spare me! My views are hardly different from those expressed during the period in question.
Only if you are living in la-la land. Your views in the 1860's would have been considered extremely radical. In fact, you should consider just how extremist the views of abolitionists were considered in the 1850's. While many Northerners advocated an end to slavery, they did not advocate equality for black people. "Separate but equal" was inherently not equal. It was a band aid applied to a deep wound of racism, and it allowed racism to flourish, in the North and the South.
Their rights! The right to own another one human being as if they were nothing more than livestock? That right? Are you arguing that their abstract right to be "free of Big Government" trumped the most basic of all human rights that; all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Is it your argument that we should look sympathetically upon these poor southerners because they were denied to right to keep other humans slaves?
Again, states' rights had much broader implications than just the issue of slavery. Why do you continue to ignore just how broad the implications are of states' rights? Do you think the people of the 1860's were so stupid that they didn't appreciate the balance of power between the states and the federal government, and that states' rights are about far more than the institution of slavery? The 1850-1860's were a pivotal time. Even the banking system we have today has foundation in the establishment of federal power that resulted from the Civil War.
Is moral relativism an anathema to conservatives? I ask the question because I find it exceedingly interesting that it seems to be perfectly fine to apply arguments of moral relativism to the Civil war but not to Nazi and Japanese aggression, Vietnamese struggles for self-determination or jihad as practiced by Islamic extremist.
I think my arguments have supported moral relativism far more than your arguments. And why do you label every person who perceives the moral relativism of the Civil War as a conservative? Liberals especially should be able to appreciate that there is more than one perspective involved here.
Why do rebels during the Civil War get accorded such a privilege?
No one accords rebels special privileges. The privilege of having your perspective appreciated is accorded to Union soldiers and Confederate soldiers, to Jefferson Davis and to Abraham Lincoln, alike.
I judge Lee by the morals of the time -- breaking oaths was considered dishonorable. Most whites from the mid 1800s would be considered racists by today's standards. Nice straw man. We're talking about owning and profiting from slave labor. That was wrong by contemporaneous standards. By the mid 1800s slavery was being abolished in civilized countries -- Britain in 1833, France 1794, etc. Taking up arms against the United States is treason as defined in the Constitution.
It takes no use of modern standards to condemn Lee. To praise him requires revisionist history.
As I said before, the right and wrong of it all depends greatly on what historical perspective is used. There was actually vey little condemnation for Southern soldiers as "traitors", some ye, but it was not a widely used viewpoint. At the beginning of tensions between North and South many states that stayed with the Union had very large percentages of their populations that disagreed with that stance. During a few reenactments, school days and other living history type events my son and I have come across many people who have made staying in character difficult due to their rabid modern outlook on the war. It's tough to portray a Confederate soldier sometimes. We do this for fun, and our group contributes as much as we can to educational purposes and both sides work this from a "period" angle. In character. Despite the fact that it's all an educational prop you would be amazed at some of the garbage we have had to deal with from people who just HAVE to get their two cents in about the "evils" of the Confederacy, sometimes to the point that it ruins the entire presentation. This is far more common at public battle reenactments than at school days and such but there have been a couple programs we have done for schools in public venues that have required some folks be removed. Lol, non reenactors seem to be more rabid about the war than we are. Of course we can always settle up within our own ranks on the "battlefield". As to the standard of conduct in Victorian times, any bashing of one side or the other depends on what side of the fence they were on. Both sides felt justified in their actions. Personally, I cannot bring any real animosity for either side into play. I wasn't there, and whats done is done. There was a lot of valorous men on both sides of the conflict. How can one judge either side harshly for fighting for what they believed to be right? As for Lee, well, he was going to be called a "traitor" no matter which side he fought for. What did he have to lose then? It was a flip of the coin for him in that regard.
Well instead of debating himself perhaps instead of trying to divine the intent of the framers he should have read about how such disputes are resolved within a representative democracy.
His faulty reasoning doesn't make him any less a traitor than anyone else charged with the offense and Lee was charged with the offense of treason and without the sympathies of both Johnson and Grant he should have been tried for that offense.
Oh, spare me! My views are hardly different from those expressed during the period in question.
Their rights! The right to own another one human being as if they were nothing more than livestock? That right? Are you arguing that their abstract right to be "free of Big Government" trumped the most basic of all human rights that; all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Is it your argument that we should look sympathetically upon these poor southerners because they were denied to right to keep other humans slaves?
Is moral relativism an anathema to conservatives? I ask the question because I find it exceedingly interesting that it seems to be perfectly fine to apply arguments of moral relativism to the Civil war but not to Nazi and Japanese aggression, Vietnamese struggles for self-determination or jihad as practiced by Islamic extremist.
Why do rebels during the Civil War get accorded such a privilege?
Look, I'm playing a role here OK. I'm used to portraying a character of the period as both my son and I reenact with a Civil War club. People with views such as yours, slinging around your crass and hypocritical moral loftiness can get REAL old sometimes. I don't care a fart in a high wind what you think of me pard, and I care even less about how you, personally, feel about period Southern views. Moral relativism? No, please spare ME. Is an absolute feeling of moral justification anathema to "liberals"? Must you always attack like a rabid wolf ANYTHING you do not agree with and expect to be taken seriously? I'm not even going to get into how I REALLY feel about the war with you because you have already judged me as morally inferior. I could return a rabid and bigoted hatred in kind and we can just start the war all over again but what purpose would that serve? Please spare me your bigotry and predjudice for all things Southern. I like the history of the period, and enjoy rational discussion of it. Start fights with someone else, I'm not interested.
Look, I'm playing a role here OK. I'm used to portraying a character of the period as both my son and I reenact with a Civil War club. People with views such as yours, slinging around your crass and hypocritical moral loftiness can get REAL old sometimes. I don't care a fart in a high wind what you think of me pard, and I care even less about how you, personally, feel about period Southern views. Moral relativism? No, please spare ME. Is an absolute feeling of moral justification anathema to "liberals"? Must you always attack like a rabid wolf ANYTHING you do not agree with and expect to be taken seriously? I'm not even going to get into how I REALLY feel about the war with you because you have already judged me as morally inferior. I could return a rabid and bigoted hatred in kind and we can just start the war all over again but what purpose would that serve? Please spare me your bigotry and predjudice for all things Southern. I like the history of the period, and enjoy rational discussion of it. Start fights with someone else, I'm not interested.
Ran out of rational arguments?
Anyway.
"Is an absolute feeling of moral justification anathema to "liberals"? "
What on earth is that suppose to mean? "Feelings" of moral justification aren't the same thing as having moral standing. An individual can rationalize any action as being right and just, (see terrorist, suicide bombers, and death camp guards) but those actions have to be weighed against what is right and what is moral, and the support of slavery was indeed immoral even by 19th Century standards. Why do you think that neither Great Britain or France lend legitimacy for the southern cause despite their economic self-interest?
As for the rest of your scrawl... Dude, I don't question your personal morality, personality, likes or dislikes. The issue before us is this revisionist glorification of an war fought for immoral reasons, brushing aside the historical facts in favor of some re-enactor fantasy. So, please feel free to play character games, I could care less, but please spare me the argument that the south was fighting for some noble cause. It wasn't noble in the 19th Century and it isn't noble now.
"Is an absolute feeling of moral justification anathema to "liberals"? "
What on earth is that suppose to mean? "Feelings" of moral justification aren't the same thing as having moral standing. An individual can rationalize any action as being right and just, (see terrorist, suicide bombers, and death camp guards) but those actions have to be weighed against what is right and what is moral, and the support of slavery was indeed immoral even by 19th Century standards. Why do you think that neither Great Britain or France lend legitimacy for the southern cause despite their economic self-interest?
As for the rest of your scrawl... Dude, I don't question your personal morality, personality, likes or dislikes. The issue before us is this revisionist glorification of an war fought for immoral reasons, brushing aside the historical facts in favor of some re-enactor fantasy. So, please feel free to play character games, I could care less, but please spare me the argument that the south was fighting for some noble cause. It wasn't noble in the 19th Century and it isn't noble now.
The war was all about slavery for YOU. And you just don't seem able to grasp that people go to war for many different reasons.
When the crusades were fought, the ostensible reason was for Christians to regain control of the Holy Land. But historically and politically, there were many reasons why those armies went. And when you start examining the reasons of the people individually, the reasons people marched hundreds of miles, set sail across the Mediterranean, and took part in battle, every person had his own reasons.
This is true of the Civil War as well. You have the reason they teach 5th graders in school. Then when you dig deeper, you find that the issues were more complex, there were more issues on the table besides slavery. And then when you start examining the personal stories of the people who fought, then you have even more reasons.
If you, personally, choose to see only one aspect of this war, that is certainly your right. I've never said slavery wasn't a reason for the war, only that it wasn't the only reason. I've never said that no soldiers fought to preserve the institution of slavery, only that not all Confederate soldiers fought for that reason. I think it's unjust to Northern and Southern soldiers alike to brush aside the context of the times, to brush aside the complexity of the political issues, to brush aside the personal struggles that so many went through when choosing a side and the sacrifices that choice entailed. You say on one hand that you can appreciate the moral ambiguities that some of these choices entail, and you slam conservatives for not appreciating moral relativism, but it's your position that is a moral absolute.
The Confederate apologist seem to confuse the motivations of individual soldiers, which were undoubtedly varied, with the motivation of the states that attempted to secede, which were pretty monolithic. States rights were an issue for many states, yet only slave states seceded. The nexus of secession was the election of Lincoln, an abolitionist, as President. The contemporaneous documents of the day confirm that slavery was the core issue for the Southern states.
There a similar attempt to rewrite the behavior of the Confederate officer corp, who had all sworn binding oaths to the United States when receiving their commissions. These men were by and contemporaneous or modern reading of the law guilt of treason against the United States. There were numerous examples of officers who had southern roots, but fulfilled their obligation and oath to their country.
The war was all about slavery for YOU. And you just don't seem able to grasp that people go to war for many different reasons.
I suppose that if we took a poll of every soldier who has ever fought in any war we would discover a myriad of reasons for their participation, everything from blind patriotism to "well that's what all of my friends were doing." But a simple review of the acts of secession, resolutions and supporting speeches tells us the true story as told by the Secessionist themselves:
South Carolina;
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
Mississippi;
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Georgia;
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
Alabama;
Speech of E. S. Dargan, in the Convention of Alabama, Jan. 11, 1861
I wish, Mr. President, to express the feelings with which I vote for the secession of Alabama from the Government of the United States; and to state, in a few words, the reasons that impel me to this act.
The Seceding Alabama Congressional Delegation, January 11, 1861
I feel impelled, Mr. President, to vote for this Ordinance by an overruling necessity. Years ago I was convinced that the Southern States would be compelled either to separate from the North, by dissolving the Federal Government, or they would be compelled to abolish the institution of African Slavery. This, in my judgment, was the only alternative; and I foresaw that the South would be compelled, at some day, to make her selection. The day is now come, and Alabama must make her selection, either to secede from the Union, and assume the position of a sovereign, independent State, or she must submit to a system of policy on the part of the Federal Government that, in a short time, will compel her to abolish African Slavery.
Texas;
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
"This is true of the Civil War as well. You have the reason they teach 5th graders in school."
Based upon how well children out perform adults on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" I find your argument to be rather lacking.
"Then when you dig deeper, you find that the issues were more complex, there were more issues on the table besides slavery."
There can be a myriad of "complex" issues on the table, there can be all sorts of nuances and obfuscation, smoke screens and rationalizations but there is no coincidence between when secession took place and who chose to do so. If your argument held water regarding grotesque Federal encroachment upon states rights, then why only slave states, if there were all these complex reasons what policies aside from slavery were advocated by the Republican Party that were so odious?
"If you, personally, choose to see only one aspect of this war, that is certainly your right. I've never said slavery wasn't a reason for the war, only that it wasn't the only reason."
Using your logic we can never come to any conclusion about any issue since our analysis would require the mining of every individual motivation. Personally, that is idiotic. The historical record is clear no matter how you spin it.
Protection of States Rights. The right to do what?
Protect a way of life. What way of life?
Defense of Private Property. What was the property?
Northern Hostility. Hostility towards what?
We can continue to go through an entire list of grievances real and imaginary and they all point back to the South's insistence on maintaining the institution of slavery. Period.
Quote:
You say on one hand that you can appreciate the moral ambiguities that some of these choices entail, and you slam conservatives for not appreciating moral relativism, but it's your position that is a moral absolute.
No I didn't say that I appreciate moral ambiguities, nor have I advocated moral relativism. I can appreciate the ambiguity of self-justification, I can understand how others shaped by a different world view than mine can justify certain acts, behaviors and motivations but that does not place a Good House Keeping seal of approval upon them.
Have a nice day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Is an absolute feeling of moral justification anathema to "liberals"? Must you always attack like a rabid wolf ANYTHING you do not agree with and expect to be taken seriously? I'm not even going to get into how I REALLY feel about the war with you because you have already judged me as morally inferior. I could return a rabid and bigoted hatred in kind and we can just start the war all over again but what purpose would that serve? Please spare me your bigotry and predjudice for all things Southern. I like the history of the period, and enjoy rational discussion of it. Start fights with someone else, I'm not interested.
