I also suggest that you read the Declaration of Independence more carefully. It does not suggest that the ideal is some sort of Egalitarian Society; nor a right to inflict our notions of morality on other peoples. The parts that you paraphrase are dealing with the simple reality--in our view--that the King of England did not have a devine right to rule over us; that if the burden of those things which they then recited--those actions of the King and Parliament--became too oppressive or intolerable, it was our right to rebel against them, and set up a new Government.
Nothing in that gives you the slightest right to kill people to impose your "morality," on the people in other societies. Had you gone South in 1860, however, and set about killing Masters, you might have gotten a quick and terminating surprise from some of those you thought you were freeing. Deny, it how you may, there is a great wealth of evidence of genuine affection between the races in the Old South.
On the other hand, your comparison of the President to an oppressive overseer--not someone ever respected in Southern culture, I might add--actually made me laugh--although I am sure that you are so full of your and his notions of morality, that you will never see the humor in it; just as you do not see the similarities between your own philosophy and those prevalent in the Nazi Germany that waged war against us in the World War to which you refer; or in the Communist effort, which enslaved so much of the world after that War, always in the name of "liberation,' "freedom," and "equality."
I have heard that Thaddeus Stevens and Karl Marx were great admirers of one another.
I do not mind going around in circles with you, as it helps educate others who have been cowed since the Clinton crowd started this new wave of Historic revisionism. It is very, very important that Modern Americans stand up for their roots.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Then I gave them the attention they deserved.
The Constitution was a compact between States, however you choose to spin it.
You're wrong, however you chose to ignore it.
And however you choose to insult the compromises in the Constitution, does not make them one whit less binding upon honorable men. I suggest that you read what Daniel Webster had to say on the subject: Daniel Webster Speech.
So, the Constitution's slave compromises were binding on the Union, but the Constitution was not binding on the Confederates. Interesting. Well, whatever justification you indulge in when justifying the negation of the entire Constitution by the South, just apply the same reasoning on the slave provisions by the North. That'll solve your dilemma right there.
I also suggest that you read the Declaration of Independence more carefully. It does not suggest that the ideal is some sort of Egalitarian Society; nor a right to inflict our notions of morality on other peoples.
I never said that it has an ideal of an Egalitarian Society. It details the political philosophy, derived from the Enlightenment, which animated the revolutionaries: that all men are created equally free, with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (that's a fancy way of saying the acquisition of property). That the only legitimate government is that which the governed consents to, and that when the people conclude that the present government does not function to secure their rights to life, liberty, etc., that the people have the right to change the government.
The parts that you paraphrase are dealing with the simple reality--in our view--that the King of England did not have a devine right to rule over us; that if the burden of those things which they then recited--those actions of the King and Parliament--became too oppressive or intolerable, it was our right to rebel against them, and set up a new Government.
Have you ever actually read the Declaration? The "parts that [I] paraphrase" was setting out the justification for the revolution, the political philosophy, discussed, supra. After discussing the political philosophy, the document describes the actions of King and Parliament which the revolutionaries believed impinged on these rights, and which, in turn, justified the colonists attempt, by force, to change the government to one to which they would consent.
Nothing in that gives you the slightest right to kill people to impose your "morality," on the people in other societies.
What the hell do you think was going on in the country in 1776, a Tupperware party? Armed men were killing other armed men. Why? Because the first group believed that the second group were depriving them and their compatriots of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the Declaration is anything, it is a justification for armed action in the face of the denial of basic individual rights.
Had you gone South in 1860, however, and set about killing Masters, you might have gotten a quick and terminating surprise from some of those you thought you were freeing.
Sure, that's why all the slaves came out in Richmond when Lincoln was there...to protest the killing of the masters. Sure.
Deny, it how you may, there is a great wealth of evidence of genuine affection between the races in the Old South.
Have you ever actually read a slave narrative?
Besides, whether there was affection between the races is really besides the point. Even if every slave in the South was well treated, the slave owners had no right to keep them in the first place. Treating a slave well does not erase the evil in keeping a slave in the first place.
On the other hand, your comparison of the President to an oppressive overseer--not someone ever respected in Southern culture, I might add--actually made me laugh--although I am sure that you are so full of your and his notions of morality, that you will never see the humor in it;
If your sense of humor is like your apparent lack of human decency when it comes to those held as slaves, I'm sure I wouldn't see the humor in it, and wouldn't want to.
just as you do not see the similarities between your own philosophy and those prevalent in the Nazi Germany that waged war against us in the World War to which you refer; or in the Communist effort, which enslaved so much of the world after that War, always in the name of "liberation,' "freedom," and "equality."
Stop being stupid. I said that it is morally justified to wage war to free those held as slaves. Both the Nazis and Communists actually felt it to be okay to wage war (internally and/or externally) to essentially enslave and kill other people. If you can't see the difference here, let me know, and I'll explain it to you.
I have heard that Thaddeus Stevens and Karl Marx were great admirers of one another.
...and I heard that Britney Spears called Christina Aguilera a bitch. What the hell does that matter?
I do not mind going around in circles with you, as it helps educate others who have been cowed since the Clinton crowd started this new wave of Historic revisionism.
Yup, cause everyone knows the slaves, they really didn't mind being slaves at all... Any talk of them being real humans, with a desire to be free and in control of their own lives, that's just that Clinton-era crazy-talk historical revisionism.
It is very, very important that Modern Americans stand up for their roots.
Yeah, and it's more important for Modern Americans to understand that there was nothing noble about slavery.