February 1857

Harper's Magazine archives (subscription required) ^ | February 1857

[Jim W N]

You’re all smoke, mirrors, and deflection DL, in bad faith and a waste of time. You’re on my “No-Fly-Zone” list and I’ll try not to waste my time including you in future discussions.

[DiogenesLamp]

You’re all smoke, mirrors, and deflection DL, in bad faith and a waste of time.

Bad Faith? I cited numerous sources (which obviously you didn't read.) in support of my argument. You know who is bad faith? Someone who keeps repeating a bit of text that doesn't even prove what he is alleging. (Should is not "Shall")

The waste of time was trying to pry you out of a mental rut and show you evidence that your revolutionary world view is in error.

You would simply prefer history to be as you imagine it, not as it can objectively be shown to be.

You’re on my “No-Fly-Zone” list and I’ll try not to waste my time including you in future discussions.

We didn't have a discussion. We had half a discussion engaging with a Dogma, and the Dogma just kept repeating itself.

Attempting to have a discussion with you made my head hurt when I try to keep up with the logical inconsistencies, contradictions with the historical record, and the constant repetition of irrelevant details that you seem to think proves something.

If you do not include me in any further such "discussions", I will consider myself lucky, but do not think that I will indulge falsehood rather than challenge it when I find it.

[Jim W N]

When asked to explain text in the Declaration of Independence that is contrary to your claims, you ran away and tried to deflect saying the text is “irrelevant” and “dogmatic” and “my head hurts”.

Smoke and mirrors. Deflection. Bad faith. A waste of time. Maybe medical problems.

Don’t call us, we’ll call you. The emergency room is available if you need it.

Bye.

[DiogenesLamp]

When asked to explain text in the Declaration of Independence that is contrary to your claims, you ran away and tried to deflect saying the text is “irrelevant” and “dogmatic” and “my head hurts”.

This is factually incorrect. I quickly pointed out that the word "should" does not mean "Shall." I believe that simply pointing out the distinct difference in the meaning of those two words was a rebuttal sufficient for a cognitive man to recognize and move on, but seemingly my point was lost on you.

Since you didn't seem to grasp my elegant and simple rebuttal of your point, I will further elaborate on it.

The text you quoted says: " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes..."

which is perhaps good advice, but it is nothing more than advice. It was obviously not intended to be a requirement because they chose the word "should" rather than "shall."

Yes, people shouldn't change their governments lightly. They should consider the matter very carefully before making such a decision, but given "free will", imprudent decisions still fall within their rights.

People have a natural right to make bad decisions. It is a characteristic of freedom.

You continue to hang your entire argument on that phrase (and the other phrase about tyranny) and from my perspective your point doesn't hold water as I indicated in my further elaboration above.

This is what I mean. I took you as a man that was quick and cognitive, not one whom needed lengthy explanations to grasp what I regard as a clear and simple point.

How you can fixated on that "Should" sentence and completely ignore this other one:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

... Is what makes my head hurt. Only by deliberately interpreting that word "should" as "shall" can you make your statement into what you want it to be, and in the meantime you have to forcefully reject the preceding sentence which clearly says that the "consent of the governed" is the primary authority for any governance.

You demonstrate "cognitive dissonance." You take something which is clear, reject that, and take something which is obviously advice, and make it not only into a command, but the central thesis of the whole document.

If the Declaration could be condensed into the fewest words possible, that "Consent of the Governed" would likely be the central tenet expressed.

Now back to you and your "smoke and mirrors" ad hominem.

[Jim W N]

Yes, people shouldn't change their governments lightly. They should consider the matter very carefully before making such a decision, but given "free will", imprudent decisions still fall within their rights. People have a natural right to make bad decisions. It is a characteristic of freedom.

Well, looks like here we have a confession but then another deflection,

People have a natural right to do a lot of stupid things, but the point here is the Founders view of justification for secession found in the text of the D of I is contrary to yours. It's not codified law, just a viewpoint but one I happen to agree with and you don't.

Now, take a couple of Valium, go to bed, and don't call me in the morning.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, looks like here we have a confession but then another deflection,

Well, it looks like we have an acknowledgement that people "should" not change their government for light and transient reasons, but what they should and should not do has nothing to do with their right to do as they see fit.

Again, the word is "should" as in "wouldn't be prudent", not "shall."

"People have a natural right to do a lot of stupid things,..."

Well, looks like here we have a confession but then another deflection. Here's the deflection part.

but the point here is the Founders view of justification for secession found in the text of the D of I is contrary to yours.

Not at all. They clearly state "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." (The ends being "to secure the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness)

As I had previously said, only the sufferer can decide whether or not a government is interfering with their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness.

The Founders listed some reasons they didn't like the existing government, but this was never construed to mean only these reasons were valid, or that there must be 27 of them to make it legitimate.

That they declare "the causes" which offended them does not preclude other people having other causes for which they wish to abolish their existing government.

"Offenses" depends entirely on who's ox is getting gored.

It's not codified law, just a viewpoint but one I happen to agree with and you don't.

You project your own ideas on to the founders, and then claim they agree with you. I have actually read much of the writings of the founders, and I recognize that they first decided they had a right to be independent, and then they thought up offenses to justify their intentions in the eyes of the European courts. King George simply ignored their declaration because he didn't see any offense in his past actions.

This is not a matter of subjective opinion, this is a matter of historical record which you could read for yourself if you only chose to do so. Again, James Otis spells out the case for Independence, and it argues that men are entitled to rule themselves, and they do not have to submit to a King, nor matter how tolerable and benevolent.

I think you don't want to admit the truth of this, because you have rightly recognized that this is the lynchpin upon which the entire argument for suppressing the South pivots. I think you come into this with the notion that above all else, the North's actions must be regarded as correct, and so therefore the only course of action is to argue the South didn't have legitimate "causes" to invoke the same rights to independence as did the founders.

You have made up your mind what your conclusions must be, and so then you attempt to force the facts and the text to fit your necessary result.

The point that "causes" are irrelevant to the right to independence is anathema to your needed outcome, and so you simply won't consider the idea objectively, and you will ignore any proof offered to demonstrate the truth of the matter.

You need what you believe to be true, so therefore in your own mind it is true.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Continued from January 6 (reply #40)

Nicole Etcheson, Bleeding Kansas: Contested Liberty in the Civil War Era

John W. Geary Wikipedia page

[colorado tanker]

A Gore administration would have seized control of the economy and attacked fossil fuels far sooner in the name of "fighting global warming."

God only knows what he would have done about 9-11. Smoked a few camel butts, I suppose.

[colorado tanker]

With the slavers gathering in Lecompton to write a new constitution, I fear there will be more bad times ahead for Kansas.

[henkster]

People crossing the southern border to vote and throw an election. Thank God that can’t happen today.

[EternalVigilance]

I think that if people want to have a thorough understanding of the events leading up to the war of the rebellion, they have to understand something about the Mexican war, since so many of the officers on both sides served there together.

One excellent place to start is with Grant’s memoirs, in which he tells of his experiences in that conflict.

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/uploads/special_features/download_files/memoirs.pdf

[BroJoeK]

From DL's post: "This case is not to be found in the books of reports."

Is that not a clue, that the case is an outlier, abnormal, mis-judged?

Regardless, this case effectively only says one thing: it recognizes the existence of slavery at the time, as lawful under certain conditions within Pennsylvania.
It says nothing, nothing about the states-right of Pennsylvania to gradually abolish slavery in Pennsylvania, or put legal restrictions on how long slave-holders like President Washington could keep their slaves in Pennsylvania without freeing them.

Finally, I note with approval that our Jim 0216 does seem to have learned something from his experience posting here, only wish we could say the same for poor DiogenesLamp.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to Jim 0216: "You have made no attempt to address the 'Natural Law' foundation of the Declaration, preferring instead to simply say 'Because they did it this way, this is the only valid way to do it.' "

DiogenesLamp often makes clear he has no respect for Founders Original Intent, which by definition makes DL something other than an American conservative.
Here he claims that his own interpretations of "Natural Law" must trump Founders' Original Intent wherever some conflict appears evident to DiogenesLamp.

So, let remind everyone of what should be obvious: a really clear and simple definition of American conservative can be summarized in two words: Constitution and Bible, not necessarily in that order but as originally intended by their Authors.
To the degree we may find ourselves, ah, "uncomfortable" with those documents, that is now much less than truly conservative, by American standards, we are.
Yes, I suppose DiogenesLamp & others may think they are making the anti-Federalist arguments against the Founders, but regardless they are not conservatives in our sense of that word.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to Jim 0216: "This idea that a people could leave a King was the assertion that men had a right to rule themselves, and not because the King was mean to them, but because they had a natural law right to do so! (This is why I say grievances are completely irrelevant.)
Your arguments squarely contradict the philosophical foundation of the Declaration."

So here, yet again, we see DiogenesLamp arguing the superiority of his own scholarship over Founders' Original Intent.
DL claims, in effect, that since some Enlightenment philosophers said "X", our Founders must mean "X" even when they said "Y".
The answer to DL, of course, is that we must go by what the Founders said and meant, not by what certain philosophers of the time may have preached.

In this particular case -- the Declaration of Independence -- it was never an issue of "secession at pleasure", or for "light & transient causes", but rather of total necessity brought on by the King's abuses, usurpations and despotism culminating in his declaration of war on the American colonies.
In response our Founders declared independence, fully understanding, as Franklin quipped at the time:

"if we do not hang together, gentlemen, then we will most assuredly hang separately."

Yes, of course Founders recognized Natural Law, but we do not recognize DiogenesLamp's interpretations of Natural Law as superior to our Founders' Original Intent as they themselves expressed & acted on it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to Jim 0216: "For some reason, you are offering the argument that the US would not have had a right to independence if the King hadn't abused them.
You are arguing that had the King been kind and benevolent, we would have no right to leave his authority."

Indeed, the historical fact is that our Founders did not, at first, want independence.
What they wanted, instead, were their rights as Englishmen to representation in Parliament.
That's what "no taxation without representation" was all about.
And there was at the time serious consideration in England for admitting Americans to Parliament, proposals eventually rejected.

Still Americans did not immediately run off & demand independence.
Instead Benjamin Franklin continued to work in London for better terms and relations with the Brits.
Only in 1776, after the King effectively declared war on Americans, ending any possible peaceful negotiations, did Franklin finally return to Philadelphia to help author the Declaration of Independence.

So, in 1776 there was no "secession at pleasure", but rather independence dictated by absolute necessity from abuses, usurpations and despotism over Americans of our Founders' generation.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to Jim 0216: "If you say, "We must stay under the rule of a King who has not abused us."
This will be an offensive position to pretty much everyone on this message board. "

Hardly, because in historical fact, that's exactly what our Founders originally believed.
Their great slogan was "no taxation without representation" and they wanted their rights as Englishmen to seats in Parliament.

Had such been granted in, say 1773, Americans achieving representation and some political say-so in Parliament, the fire would have been gone from rebellion and any actual fighting considered mere civil war amongst various factions of Englishmen.
Of course, such representation in Parliament may not have been, in 1773, politically practical, but movement in that direction was the first stated goal of men who later became our Founders.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to Jim 0216: "The founders themselves would have asserted the right to self government no matter what the King had done."

Not true until 1776, after the King effectively declared war on Americans and Franklin returned from London to Philadelphia to help write the Declaration of Independence.

In all the years before, Franklin worked tirelessly to negotiate better terms & conditions for Americans, including representation in Parliament.
Had Franklin's worked proved more successful, events in 1775 would have taken a very different course indeed.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Personal Memoirs is a great read. (My paperback copy doesn't include any of those maps.) I recommend Jean Edward Smith's bio of Grant as a supplement. He provides a more clear and colorful accounting of Grant's own exploits in Mexico and, IMO, provides a better overview of the Mexican War.

[EternalVigilance]

An excellent book. I think Smith gives Grant his due, unlike the horrid treatment given him back in the ‘80s by William McFeely in his biography of the man.

[DiogenesLamp]

Is that not a clue, that the case is an outlier, abnormal, mis-judged?

Not really. If you look into the matter more deeply, you find that all the records from that time period were lost/destroyed. Not just this case, but many other cases from that court during that time period. Apparently whoever was responsible for keeping the records safe, didn't do their job. I think I had read that some were destroyed by water leaking into them from a bad roof.

It says nothing, nothing about the states-right of Pennsylvania to gradually abolish slavery in Pennsylvania, or put legal restrictions on how long slave-holders like President Washington could keep their slaves in Pennsylvania without freeing them.

It says as of 1802, Flora was a slave. One does not need to do a lot of contemplation to grasp the significance of this ruling. Again, slavery continued *in* Pennsylvania till at least 1840.