The Gettysburg Address

[poptab]

I don't disagree that a right to secession seems implied. I think it's a matter of how. While nothing in the Constitution prohibits it, neither does a process for secession. There is a process to join, however.

This is why these absolutist arguments don't make sense to me, and they don't reflect credit on those who make them. This is far from a settled question philosophically, though it is settled in practice now.

It must be rewarding to always be so certain about your arguments. I think you would have more credibility, however, to occasionally discover a subject that wasn't certain, obvious, and only opposed by statists.

Do you have a problem with all absolutist arguments or just these specific ones?

 

[Henry]

Do the ends justify the means?

Lincoln clearly believed so.

 

[rambone]

Yes, but they laid out their case very well. They weren't represented, their wishes didn't matter, promises were not kept. They even explain that if you're going to take such a radical step you should have very good reasons, one of which is that it's unbearable and there's no other way to fix it. They also felt you owed the rest of the world a good argument.

The Southern states were represented politically, had a say, were part of the process. They just didn't like the outcome of the process - that Lincoln, an anti-slavery President, had been elected.

So, even if I agree with your premise, I'd argue that the outline the founders laid out in the Declaration wasn't even in the ballpark to be applied to the South's reasoning.

Having a list of unbearable offenses is nice, but not necessary, I would argue. The only moral justification required for a secession is that people collectively declare that they no longer consent to being ruled-- plus nothing.

Hypothetical: Let's say Californians democratically declared that they no longer consent to being part of the USA. For the sake of argument, lets say that all of their reasons are stupid (in our opinions). They disagree with the current direction of the USA and want to go a different direction. They want to model their new government on the principles of Karl Marx and they are adamant about leaving and creating a New California Republic. They absolutely do not consent to being governed.

They have ugly ideas, have hypocritical leaders, and don't care much for individual liberty. They don't care that their ancestors voted to join the union -- they clearly want out, now! Is it moral to force them to stay in the union?

I would argue that even with their stupid philosophy and bad ideas, they have the right to leave. Even with their valuable ports and resources, even with all the good things they bring to the union, there is no defensible argument for militarily crushing them and calling them "rebels."

 

[Hawkeye]

Have to say that I think I agree with Rambone. Might be an argument that they have to repay the Feds for Federal property or agree to some sort of long term lease (for bases/facilities). Then again, maybe no...

 

[jamil]

Lincoln clearly believed so.

So did Jefferson Davis and the rest of Southern Aristocracy.

 

[Henry]

So did Jefferson Davis and the rest of Southern Aristocracy.

Are their images on your currency?

Are their portraits hanging on the wall next to the flag to which you and your children pledge allegiance?

 

[jamil]

Are their images on your currency?

Are their portraits hanging on the wall next to the flag to which you and your children pledge allegiance?

They lost. Had they won. Yeah, they'd have their faces on currency and have their own sort of pledge. Not sure why you think that's relevant.

 

[Henry]

Im just not a fan of treating Lincoln like a hero when he was nothing more than a tyrant.

 

[jamil]

Im just not a fan of treating Lincoln like a hero when he was nothing more than a tyrant.

Treating him as more evil than he was is as inaccurate and dishonest as treating him as more of a saint than he was.

 

[Henry]

Treating him as more evil than he was is as inaccurate and dishonest as treating him as more of a saint than he was.

Oh, I've barely scratched the surface of my opinion of that bastard.

 

[dross]

Do you have a problem with all absolutist arguments or just these specific ones?

I don't have a problem with all absolutist arguments, I have a problem when every situation, no matter how ambiguous is presented as obvious, and its opponents characterized as statists. It's the philosophical and doctrinal purity, and the righteousness of the "libertarian" high priests on this site that I'm bothered by. As if no question ever had shades of grey.

 

[Coach]

In a "civil war", the fractions involved are seeking control over the central government in effort to control the other factions.

The seceding States were not seeking to control other States. They were simply walking away.

It was not a civil war. It was a war of northern aggression.

Who fired first? Facts are stubborn things.

 

[Henry]

Who fired first? Facts are stubborn things.

Again, already addressed in the thread.

 

[jamil]

Again, already addressed in the thread.

Yep. Ideology trumps reality. Always.

 

[Henry]

Yep. Ideology trumps reality. Always.

Read the posts re the first shot.

 

[spencer rifle]

Let's get some facts straight. Ft. Sumter in April was not the first shot. It was by Southern forces on January 9, 1861, at the Union steamer Star of the West attempting to resupply the Army garrison.
The cause of the war was the insistence of the Southerners on keeping fellow humans as property. But don't take my word for it - read the Article of Secession for the various states, written at the time (and not subsequently "revised" by Lost Causers) by those empowered to make the decisions. They would never have resorted to secession if they had not felt their "peculiar institution" was threatened by Lincoln's election.

 

[wagyu52]

There was a well established history of southern states attempting to negotiate peacefully prior to the military conflict, particularly in South Carolina. The response to the 1828 and 1832 Tariff Acts is but one example.


"In personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict. Rather, the true aggressor is the first who renders force necessary."

Under your "he who fires the first shot is the aggressor" theory, would you be the aggressor for firing upon an armed man breaking into your home? Or would you wait until he first fired upon you in order to be a defender of your home?

Lincoln Provoked the War

Do some of your own research.


BTW, it is also worth noting that not a single person was killed at Ft. Sumter.

I did some research and found this on the same web page.

Lincoln the Realist

And this.

Lincoln, the Man of Peace

Finally this.

Questions for Consideration

 

[Henry]

The Star of the West was trespassing into foreign territory given South Carolina had already seceded from the union by that point. As in the later defensive action at Ft. Sumter, not a single person was killed.

 

[Henry]

James Bovard: Violence, Chaos and the Expansion of Government Power in 1864 - WSJ


A good article in this weekend's edition of the WSJ entitled "Violence, Chaos, and the Expansion of Government Power in 1864".

The article does a good job demonstrating Lincoln's tyranny through his murder and pillage of the Shenandoah Valley and his willingness to expand his war of aggression to civilians and private property. All of this, and more, to hinder a State's exercise of its power to peacefully walk away.

This set the stage for an even more over reaching central government following the war of northern aggression Liberty continues to suffer under today.

Lincoln "saving the union" is a popular lie. He did not save the union. He killed it. He wiped away a union of consent in favor of a union by force.

 

[jamil]

Henry, honestly, I think your hatred of Lincoln has caused you to ascribe a greater level of evil than I think he's earned. I don't think he deserves to be worshiped, but I don't think that level of criticism is intellectually honest.