Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered (contains many fascinating facts -golux)

via e-mail | Thursday, July 9, 2015 | Chuck Baldwin

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, what you've done is taken a side in a very controversial issue and convinced yourself that it is free of controversy.

No, i've convinced myself that one principle is more important than another; that free people can exercise the right of separation. That people cannot use an objection to something which was legal and accepted at the time, as ex post facto justification for forcing them back under the rule of others against their will.

And, it makes you unhappy to find that there are people on the other side of what was always a controversial issue, despite you self-delusion.

What makes me unhappy is finding people who cannot keep their history or their logic in the proper sequence. It's like declaring meat to be evil, getting laws passed after the fact, then punishing people for eating meat while it was legal.

It is the problem of people insisting ex post facto justification for the far greater offense of subjugating other people who no longer wish to associate with them.

There isn't any legal basis for your contention that our Constitution affords some of its citizens a right to cancel the United States citizenship belonging to their neighbors or to cancel the rights belonging to their neighbors as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Your side keeps saying this. The very first "legal" document of the United States government is the Declaration of Independence, and it specifically cites *GOD* as the "legal" authority for freedom.

Under the rules of that time period, there was no higher legal authority than God. So why do you keep saying they had no "legal" authority to separate? Why do you keep saying that? Do you have to keep repeating it so you can swallow your own rationalization?

The fact that secession was attempted in order to preserve the practice of human bondage is unfortunate, but it is part of the baggage that you have chosen to carry.

Let us say the Union North was seceding from the Slave Holding South. Would they Union North suddenly have a right you respected, or must they still be forced back into the Union with the South?

Pushing the cause of slaveholders is not likely to somehow lead to an outcome favoring liberty. There's a tension there that just can't be avoided.

As I explained to you before, I am not "pushing the cause of slaveholders", I am pushing the right to independence.

Just as the ACLU defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, I acknowledge that we must protect the rights of bad people if we are to protect the rights of good.

Pssst. Nobody's going to hang you in a fortnight. Unless you hurt yourself, you're going to be ok. ;-)

Dude, "fortnight" and "hanging" are metaphors. More likely it will be "the next ten years" and "re-education/interment camps."

Your attitude reminds me of one of my favorite cartoons from the Jimmy Carter era. It shows a cartoon Carter walking down a path with "evil" trees on each side with large demonic eyes and claw laden hands reaching out to grasp him. Other threatening eyes are staring at him out of the darkness.

Jimmy Carter has a big smile on his face and the caption reads:

"Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil.... because I am the dumbest sonofab*tch in the valley! "

[DiogenesLamp]

I find your argument odd. You insist we must ignore the , the plain wording of the document, and instead divine what the signers intended to say.

One does not need "divination" to see what they did. That is a mater of record, and what they did does not comport with what you believe they said.

Ergo, their understanding of the meaning of the document at the time, does not comport with yours.

Then you turn around and say the later words and actions of those signers is not relevant to our trying to figure out what they intended it to say.

I don't think I am saying any such thing. I am saying that their actions do not comport with the meaning you impart to their words, and one must either conclude they didn't comprehend their own writing, or that your interpretation of it is wrong. A third, and likely explanation is that they meant for that bit to apply to themselves, but did not realize at the time that it ought to apply to slaves as well.

As you say, the primary writer of the Declaration was a major slaveowner. AFAIK, he has never been accused of being an incompetent writer, saying things he didn’t actually mean to say.

What does it mean when a slaveholder says "all men are created equal"? Equal to him? Then why is he the master?

Does. Not. Compute.

But typical behavior for Jet setting Liberals who constantly harangue the rest of us to use less fossil fuel.

[DiogenesLamp]

See there is your problem.....you are trying to take sides in a 150 year old conflict.

Older than that, I think.

It appears to be a continuation of the fight between the Scots and the English.

[DiogenesLamp]

As is usually the case, I can’t express it better than a dead man did.

“All honor to Jefferson—to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.”

An observation with which I can find no fault. Lincoln was a brilliant writer and an astute thinker. I quote him quite a lot myself from time to time.

Of course Lincoln lost sight of the larger purpose of Jefferson's document. Badly so.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ha! I just got a great analogy for your position...

“This is akin to joining a civil reenactment group then demanding the battles be played out differently”

If you can't understand what I write, just say so.

[Crim]

Or the KKK protestants vs Blacks, Republicans, catholics and jews.

The same people who lost the Civil war....democrats.

[Crim]

I dont understand the whole point of Defending the actions Southern Democrats in the first place.

The CSA was 100% Democrat...no other parties allowed.

[DiogenesLamp]

However, there was a large and growing percentage of the population that considered it immoral.

And I assert that it would have continued to grow, that it was in fact, unstoppable. That the war was unnecessary, and that time would have done the job anyway.

Tracking the progress of the abolition movement it becomes apparent that it's an exponential growth. It would have slowed in the South because they were so heavily invested and dependent upon it, but the Social attitudes would have continued to erode it until it was gone.

I believe that the fact that slavery is almost universally condemned...

In Christian nations.

most hilariously of all, claim that they reason they seceded was unimportant.

"Irrelevant." Get it right.

I will only say that there were two sides to this discussion, and a vigorous debate was had by both

Force is not a debate. Ultima ratio regum, is not an actual argument. It is merely a reiteration of the principle that "Might makes right"; That the Strong justifiably conquers the Weak. It is, in fact, a Justification for the principle of Slavery. It is the very foundation of it.

In prosecuting the war, the Union affirmed it.

why do some folks nowadays have a problem with it?

Because it loses the larger point in all the emotional noise. Of course, this is the intended function of steering the discussion into that cul-de-sac.

An honest, and logical debate does not suit their ends.

[Tau Food]

A problem with your analysis is that nobody has ever contested your legal right to "exercise the right of separation." But, you insist on much more than that. You insist that you have a "God-given" right to force your neighbors to join you in your separation.

You like to frame all this as simply a struggle between the individual and the tyrannical state when in fact your conception of secession involves a whole lot of individuals and many of them may not agree with you about your utopian visions, whatever they may be. If you wish to cancel your citizenship, cancel your citizenship, but you have no right to cancel my citizenship.

And, the reality is that, as you have more or less conceded, you won't be happy in any "place" that is organized politically. You're unhappy. You seem to think that it has something to do with government and that your neighbors should pay the price for your unhappiness by the loss of their citizenship.

As a United States citizen, I am one of those who come within the terms of "We the People" and we are bound together politically by the United States Constitution. You have no right to interfere with the bonds between me and other American citizens.

Again, you are as an individual entitled to separate yourself legally from the rest of us. You seem in fact to be more or less separated already. But, this notion that you can drag the rest of us with you is an unfortunate delusion.

You have somehow convinced yourself that there was a time when everyone held your view. You played the same trick with yourself when the subject was Vattel and the "natural born citizen" clause. Views are and always have been diverse. In fact, most people probably never think about these issues at all and those that do arrive at all sorts of different conclusions. You need to develop a "decent respect" for the opinions of others.

I don't by any means think this country is perfect. I disagree with lots of people about lots of things. But, I have to concede that I have received opportunities to succeed here that just don't exist elsewhere. I know that I am lucky to have been born here.

I sincerely hope that you can somehow find yourself some happiness in a less than perfect world. Maybe the answer doesn't have anything to do with government or politics.

[Team Cuda]

I’m having trouble following your argument here. You state that the war was unnecessary because slavery would have ended anyway. So, why did the South start the war by seceding because of slavery. As has been stated again and again, the North did not fight because of slavery, they fought to preserve the Union.

I don’t understand why you felt the need to add the qualifier Christian to the argument about slavery, while technically correct, what does this have to do with this discussion. I added Northern European countries to the discussion. I believe that the number of Hindu, Moslem, or Buddhist countries in North America and Norther Europe is vanishingly small. The importance of Asia, Africa or Antarctica in the discussion of slavery in the Southern US is infinitesimally small.

The definition of unimportant is “lacking in importance or significance”. I think I got it right.

You say force is not a debate. Let me give you a hypothetical. One portion of a nation illegally secedes from the country and starts hostilities by staging an unprovoked attack on a military fort of said nation. There is no international court or body to adjudicate the dispute. In my mind, the nation has only two responses. They can; 1) unilaterally surrender, or 2) defend themselves. I personally choose #2. This, n my mind, is legitimately an act of self-defense.
I really don’t understand your last sentence. You say “An honest, and logical debate does not suit their ends.” I contend that the South, by Seceding and opening fire on Fort Sumter, effectively ended any debate and led to the War. They could have stayed in the Union and continued to argue in the Legislature and in the Courts, but they chose to pick up their ball and go home, all because the country democratically elected someone they feared MIGHT do something about slavery.

[Team Cuda]

What was true in 1783 with the signing of the treaty of Paris, was not necessarily true in 1861. In 1783, the British themselves had slavery so of course they had no trouble with slavery in the US. Howver, the British passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833, and after that increasingly had a problem with slavery.

As far as England was concerned, there was a great deal of sympathy among the aristocracy and upper classes for the Southern cause, but they were prevented from recognizing the CSA as a country due to the widespread hate of slavery from the middle and working classes.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don’t condemn Jefferson for his Deism, as I’m sure you don’t, either. He was a product of his times, a genius, and a very complicated fellow. He is one of the most interesting persons of the Revolutionary period, right up there with Franklin.

And regarding that, I have no quibble.

[DiogenesLamp]

Or the KKK protestants vs Blacks, Republicans, catholics and jews.

The same people who lost the Civil war....democrats.

At one time I would have agreed with you. Over time I learned the demarcations are not quite so simple.

[DiogenesLamp]

I dont understand the whole point of Defending the actions Southern Democrats in the first place.

Because I see the issue of secession undergoing a potential resurgence, and therefore the right to do such a thing needs to be defended.

This is not about the past, but is instead about the future. Liberal states have no conception of sanely managing their money, and they are going to wreck the finances of the Entire Nation.

This is where "lifeboats" comes in handy.

[DiogenesLamp]

You insist that you have a "God-given" right to force your neighbors to join you in your separation.

In a democracy, 50.1% of a population forces the other 49.9% to do what the majority wants. This is the accepted norm. It has been pointed out that Virginia voted for secession by a ration of 6 to 1. If this is indeed true, at what point do you think it is appropriate for the rump of the population to stop controlling what the rest wants?

If you wish to cancel your citizenship, cancel your citizenship, but you have no right to cancel my citizenship.

No more than the Founders had a right to cancel British Loyalists subjectude. Do you object to their having done that?

Again, you are as an individual entitled to separate yourself legally from the rest of us.

Not really, no. Ever hear of "Gay Wedding cake"?

You played the same trick with yourself when the subject was Vattel and the "natural born citizen" clause.

It wasn't a trick. I and others simply tracked the issue back to it's source rather than relying on what less informed people thought of it during the subsequent 239 years. It's funny that you should bring that up in this discussion because I regard the two issues as intimately connected in a critical juncture with the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration is the Temporal Nexus for both issues. It paradoxically created the Dichotomy we see relating to both issues. It's very existence is the Consequence of Vattel infusing the colonies with such an idea, and yet as a result of Thomas Jefferson's words, it was subsequently utilized to undermine the very sort of citizenship it created.

It is a tangled mess of contradictions and paradoxes, and if there was ever a critical point in World history, the Declaration was it.

Views are and always have been diverse. In fact, most people probably never think about these issues at all and those that do arrive at all sorts of different conclusions. You need to develop a "decent respect" for the opinions of others.

The emotionally and popularly driven views of the uninformed are entitled to no particular respect, and why should they be? A major problem in this nation today is that too many vital decisions are being made by people who are either uninformed or misinformed, our current "Precedent" being but an example of the consequences of giving the stupid people this power.

Obama is the ultimate rebuttal to your assertion.

I don't by any means think this country is perfect. I disagree with lots of people about lots of things. But, I have to concede that I have received opportunities to succeed here that just don't exist elsewhere.

We are running on inertia from the previous eras when the nation was inhabited by a decent and religious populace, but as Adam Smith observed, "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation."

We are running on phoney money. Our irrational and ill informed populace keeps electing people who have borrowed and spent us into poverty, but the irrational and ill informed have yet to realize all their current prosperity is built on borrowed dollars that will be paid back one way or the other. We live in a giant financial Potemkin Village.

I sincerely hope that you can somehow find yourself some happiness in a less than perfect world. Maybe the answer doesn't have anything to do with government or politics.

Your comment reminds me of what Trotsky said:

"You may not be interested in War, but War is certainly interested in you."

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m having trouble following your argument here. You state that the war was unnecessary because slavery would have ended anyway. So, why did the South start the war by seceding because of slavery.

The reason you are having trouble following the argument is because you initiate it with false and irrelevant assumptions, but i'm not going to get into that right now.

Had the South stayed in the Union, Slavery would have eventually been overcome by the social forces. The rich people society tends to drag the rest of rich people society around with it, so that the "beautiful people" eventually end up on the same page.

Note how many wealthy in all parts of the country have embraced "gay marriage" and liberal social issues. Do you know any billionaires that are against them?

Had the South successfully left the Union, the same social pressures would still be in effect, and all the "high society" people of the South would still associate and socialize with all the "high society" people of the North. Over time, the subtle social pressures would force them into alignment with the dominant herd mentality because to remain contrary would be damaging to their social status amongst the people they regard as their "peers."

In other words, the social pressure is all one sided. It moves in one direction only, and so does the practical aspects of society. Machinery was coming, just as it did in the North, and once you undermine both the social acceptance and the economics, you have basically dealt it a death blow.

Now you may pooh pooh this reliance on Social forces, but I urge you to read the book "Leftism Revisited" where Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin points out how they operated on the Families of the French Aristocracy in the 1790s, much to their detriment.

I don’t understand why you felt the need to add the qualifier Christian to the argument about slavery, while technically correct, what does this have to do with this discussion.

Because it all starts out as foundational ideas, and it cannot be emphasized too much that a primary factor in what made this nation great is the underpinning of society by Christian ideas. Slavery is not at all inconsistent with Islam, in fact, it is a mandatory aspect of it.

You say force is not a debate. Let me give you a hypothetical. One portion of a nation illegally secedes from the country and starts hostilities by staging an unprovoked attack on a military fort of said nation.

It wasn't illegal, and it wasn't exactly "unprovoked." Why it wasn't illegal is because our first, and highest legal document says so. Why it wasn't "unprovoked" is because of the stubborn insistence of the Union in hanging on to property that was withdrawn from it by the consent of the governed, and it's refusal to negotiate any reconciliation on the matter.

The Union was in the wrong on both counts, but the Southerners should have exercised more prudence in tolerating their violations, at least until inertia was working in their favor.

I really don’t understand your last sentence. You say “An honest, and logical debate does not suit their ends.”

A logical debate must proceed as a sequence and in the correct order.

Did the South have the right to secede? If the answer is "Yes", then the reasons don't matter. If the answer is "No", then the reasons still don't matter.

In both cases, the "reasons" are immaterial to the prime question, but essential to stampeding irrational and ill informed people into an emotional argumentum ad populum.

"Appeals to slavery" are a constant attempt to short circuit the logical debate, and to turn it into an emotional debate where people outbid each other in their efforts to convey how much they strongly disapprove of slavery.

Again, the reasons they wanted to leave are irrelevant. If they have the right, then you can't gainsay their reasons, and if they don't have the right, their reasons for leaving won't grant them the right.

[Team Cuda]

So, we are at a fundamental disagreement. You say that the reasons for the secession are immaterial. I fundamentally disagree with you and, more importantly, so did the legislatures of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, and Georgia, who actually published for the world and posterity the reasons for their actions. Again, if the people who actually did the Secession thought their reasons were important and material, why do you disagree?

As for whether the actions were illegal and unprovoked, I will ask you what court ruled their actions legal. Under our form of government, the Supreme Court of the United States ultimately rules on whether actions are constitutional or not. I do not recollect that they ever ruled that Secession was legal. As for the umprovoked portion, I will concede that the Northern States not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act was certainly a provocation. I would suggest however, that seceding and starting a war that killed over 600,000 Americans was certainly an overreaction to this provocation.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, we are at a fundamental disagreement. You say that the reasons for the secession are immaterial.

I thought I explained this adequetly. If Secession is a right, their reasons don't matter. If Secession is NOT a right, their reasons still don't matter.

What part of this decision branch do you believe to be incorrect?

[Team Cuda]

You still haven’t explained why the good people of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, and Georgia found in necessary to expalin their reasons in the various Articles of Secession. They clearly thought the reasons were material. I think it is important to honor their decision.

[DiogenesLamp]

You still haven’t explained why the good people of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, and Georgia found in necessary to explaining their reasons in the various Articles of Secession.

That is a topic only tangentially related to the most consequential point.

Did they have a right?