But this moral judgment of yours, despite your rant, is not one that you have supported on any basis other than your own rhetoric. While I agree that a slave system is a flawed system, that does not in and of itself make slaveholders evil men; nor does it give you the slightest right to interfere in other people's cultures.
If you want to narrow this to the specifics of this thread, let me be very clear. The Constitution--however you deny it--was a compact between the States, whose independence had been recognized in the Treaty of Paris in 1783. It was based upon delegated powers. As Article VII makes very clear, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."
Parse that language anyway that you like, and it is a Compact between the States that ratify. Several almost didn't join.
There are several provisions in that Constitution, which deliberately took slavery off the table, as an issue between the States, ratifying the Constitution. Your suggestion that you--or those who think as you think--would have been justified in waging a murderous war, against the Southern leadership, because they insisted on the original Constitutional intent, is what is truly immoral; truly evil. It was because there were an increasing number talking, as you are writing, was probably the single most significant reason for the South's secession--although there had been many other issues, also.
As for systems that demean individuals? Do you really think that the slave or bondsman, whether in Biblical, Greek, Roman or ante-bellum Southern times, who served a Master loyally, and in a way that contributed to his social order at the time, had less dignity than someone today, living on Welfare, without even trying to do anything productive? Or take the serf, serving the great landowner, who went off to war with his King, Henry V? Was there not far more dignity in his service at Agincourt, than that accorded many a modern beneficiary of Tony Blair's Socialist Britain?
You want to see history as a battle between Good and Evil, rather than one between differing perspectives, and competing interests. There certainly are evil men; but their differing with you on competing social systems is not the crux of their evil. On the other hand, those who take an oath to support a Constitutional compact, and then call for a course of action that flies in the face of that compact, have violated one of the most sacred principles of morality. The South was reacting, not provoking in her secession. The tragedy--on both sides--flowed from the arrogant madness you espouse.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
But this moral judgment of yours, despite your rant, is not one that you have supported on any basis other than your own rhetoric.
Not true, but I'll restate it. I believe that every person has a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Remember that? It's in the Declaration of Independence. You can look it up. If a political system denies its citizens these God-given, inalienable rights, then that system is morally corrupt.
This does not mean anything more than that. It does not mean that everyone in that society is evil or that there is nothing positive to say about it. Merely that that part of the system which permitted human bondage was wrong.
***
While I agree that a slave system is a flawed system, that does not in and of itself make slaveholders evil men; nor does it give you the slightest right to interfere in other people's cultures.
It does not, in and of itself make those men evil men. I can think of a number of situations where a man could find himself a slave holder without acting immorally. But that does not mean that no (or most) slaveholders were of that type, or that slavery itself was not immoral.
Further, if a man holds a gun to my head, I have the right to kill him in self-defense. If a man holds a gun to your head, I have the right to kill him to save you. If a man holds me a slave, I have the right to kill him, if necessary, to free myself. And, likewise, if a man holds you as a slave, I have the right to kill him, if necessary, to free you. All the rest is dicta.
And this has nothing to do with some "not interfering with other people's culture" putrid politically correct crap. It has to do with whether you believe in the promise of America, that every individual has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
***
If you want to narrow this to the specifics of this thread, let me be very clear. The Constitution--however you deny it--was a compact between the States, whose independence had been recognized in the Treaty of Paris in 1783. It was based upon delegated powers. As Article VII makes very clear, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." Parse that language anyway that you like, and it is a Compact between the States that ratify. Several almost didn't join.
Uhh, no. As I said before, the Constitution did envision the continued existence of the states, but it was no compact. If it was merely a compact between states, then the states could have ratified the Constitution through legislative acts. It would not require the consent of the people through Conventions. (Every state enters into compacts to this day, for interstate standards for many things. If there is a major river separating states, for example, often bridge authorities exist to control and manage the bridge crossings. Those are created through interstate compacts. When was the last time you heard of a convention to ratify the creation of a bridge authority?)
Further, in the Declaration, it sets out a political philosophy which states that when a Government becomes destructive to the ends of securing the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government and create another. The Constitution created a new form of Government, that of a federal republic, in place of the one preceding it, that of the Articles of Confederation. Under the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, it was the people, not the states, which had that right. Thus, as a matter of political philosophy, only the people could have ordained and established the Constitution.
Finally, there is the issue of Article VI, clause 3. Not only did the Federal officers have to swear or affirm that they would uphold the Constitution (including the clause which made Federal law the Supreme Law of the Land), but members of the state legislatures, state judicial and state executive officers had to likewise do so. If the Constitution merely established a compact, the state legislatures, officers, etc., would not have to swear to uphold it. Thus, it is clear that the Constitution did not make something inferior to the authority of the state (which would be the case of a compact) but something superior to the authority of the state.
***
There are several provisions in that Constitution, which deliberately took slavery off the table, as an issue between the States, ratifying the Constitution. Your suggestion that you--or those who think as you think--would have been justified in waging a murderous war, against the Southern leadership, because they insisted on the original Constitutional intent, is what is truly immoral; truly evil. It was because there were an increasing number talking, as you are writing, was probably the single most significant reason for the South's secession--although there had been many other issues, also.
Those who formed the Union in the first place were required to compromise on the issue of slavery, in order for the South to agree on the issue. They made a deal with the devil so to speak. To the extent that it later sowed the seeds for the abolition of slavery was some mitigation. They are morally culpable for their actions, but I think they did what they could.
Had they chosen to fight in order to eliminate slavery instead of making this compromise, they would have been morally justified in doing so.
***
As for systems that demean individuals? Do you really think that the slave or bondsman, whether in Biblical, Greek, Roman or ante-bellum Southern times, who served a Master loyally, and in a way that contributed to his social order at the time, had less dignity than someone today, living on Welfare, without even trying to do anything productive?
Oh, please. Are you really so myopic that you see nothing but this false duality? Who has more dignity, Uncle Remus or the welfare queen???
Turn it around: Who do you think has a higher moral standard, the overseer who whips slaves out of sadism and rapes the slave women for his own animal gratification or the man who promoted Colin Powell to Secretary of State and Condie Rice to National Security Adviser??
***
Or take the serf, serving the great landowner, who went off to war with his King, Henry V? Was there not far more dignity in his service at Agincourt, than that accorded many a modern beneficiary of Tony Blair's Socialist Britain?
Again, the question was not whether he was dignified in his situation, but whether he was respected as a man. Was this serf given the option of not serving? Was his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness stripped from him on the arbitrary whim of the state? If so, then an evil was done. The decree to which the victim of that evil mitigates or overcomes it is merely a credit to him as an individual, it does not go to vitiate the evil in the system.
***
You want to see history as a battle between Good and Evil, rather than one between differing perspectives, and competing interests.
Actually it is often both. History is often a battle between Good and Evil. See, e.g., WWII. But is also a fight between differing perspectives and competing interests. See, e.g., WWII.
What you appear to want to do is to simply strip the element of evil away from the antebellum South in order to not feel unease at your admiration for the Confederates. This is juvenile thinking, in my opinion, because it presupposes that the Confederates were incapable of evil and incapable of being wrong. If you view them this way, then you do not view them as human beings, which they most assuredly were, but as demigods, whose every action is justified if only we could discern how.
A mature view of history could say Robert E. Lee was a gentleman, a fine soldier, a man of good character, and one of the indispensable men of history who, unfortunately, fought in defense of a system which permitted the evils of slavery.
***
There certainly are evil men; but their differing with you on competing social systems is not the crux of their evil. On the other hand, those who take an oath to support a Constitutional compact, and then call for a course of action that flies in the face of that compact, have violated one of the most sacred principles of morality.
This, in my mind, is a pretty monstrous way of looking at the world: It is not evil to establish a slave-holding society, but it is evil to fight one? What a tortured view of morality that is.
***
The South was reacting, not provoking in her secession. The tragedy--on both sides--flowed from the arrogant madness you espouse.
All men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and it is moral to fight to secure these rights, be the beneficiary of that fight you or another. If these ideas be "arrogant madness" then I am arrogantly mad. As were innumerable great men in our history and in world history. I would be proud to take my place among them.