Posted on 05/10/2004 8:11:09 AM PDT by LTGStonewall
I'm not sure why the same argument doesn't apply to genocide, but whatever.
I don't advocate the practice, nor do I wish for it's return, but your statement is in conflict with Biblical passages that allow slavery for punishment, the spoils of war, or for debts.
I can't argue with that its in conflict with Biblical passages. But are you saying that though you don't personally advocate it, you don't think that its morally wrong?
No, I'm not. You're just so blinded by the usual pointless arguments here that you're slamming my point into that category without really listening. How many debates/discussions have their been on FR about whether the Civil War was "about" slavery, or whether that was the motivation for the war, etc.? If I'd guess 100 or so, I think it would be hugely underestimating the actual number. Agreed?
What's the point of those discussion if the answer doesn't change the justification question? I mean, if your position is that the war wasn't justified regardless of whether slavery was "the issue", then aren't all those discussions irrelevant? It just strikes me that before people get all bent out of shape in a disagreement over an issue, it would make sense to figure out if the answer even matters.
I'm also admitting that slavery was not the sole issue, and that the Union did not enter the war solely to liberate slaves. Lincoln expressly stated that his goal was to preserve the union. So I'm talking about a hypothetical moral issue, not trying to reargue the debate over who was right. The North obviously did not take the moral position I tossed out there.
So rather than trying to start a flame war, I was raising the hypothetical question of whether the eradication of slavery, standing alone, could ever justify a war. That type of question would seem to have some relevance in the modern world, when one of the reasons we went to war -- and hence violated the sovereignity of another nation -- was to eliminate a regime that horrible brutalized its own people. And just to be clear, I think that's a legit justification, so I'm not blasting Bush.
Why else write such a statement.
To see if you believed there could be situations where moral imperatives trumped national sovereignity. I fully understand that such a distinct clarity of issues was not the case in the Civil War. From your answer, I take it that genocide does trump national sovereignity, but slavery does not.
So that I can be chastised because I believe that what the Nazis did and a fight over the sovereignty of the individual states are two different things.
No. You're missing the point. I never said that the North's only goal was to eradicate slavery, while permitting secession. That's NOT what happened in the Civil War, so you can't fairly compare the southern leaders to Nazis. What I'm saying is that IF you took the sovereignity issue out of it, and IF the North had agreed (which it did not) to let the South secede as long as it eliminated slavery, would your position on the justification of the war be any different? And realize that the answer has no impact on what really happened in the Civil War, because that was not the choice with which Jackson, Lee, etc. were presented.
Well, you better pack your bags. You have your work cut out for you. But...at least you will be riding a high horse on a high moral ground.
Why do you insist on equating a moral justification with a moral imperative? Just because I believe that people should be permitted to all their money to charity doesn't mean that I have to do so myself.
Stop whining. You have been answered on this thread. I don't advocate slavery nor would I have fought for it. I don't think I could make it plainer than that. No one is bent out of shape... so relax!
So, now you want an answer to some moral issue that exists in a vaccuum. Sorry, those things don't exist. Moral issues come with strings and baggage attached. That's why this argument is pointless. That is why you can't compare slavery with the Holocaust. They are two different and separate matters. They don't belong in the same equation.
From your answer, I take it that genocide does trump national sovereignity, but slavery does not.
No, you only took from my answer enough to keep your little flame war going.
Again, in your laboratory...out of context, out of time, out of culture, out of society... just a little issue sitting in a petrie dish... does slavery justify invasion. No. For one reason. How and where do you draw the line? It is not possible for one nation to police the morals of every society--every nation and force it to comply with a moral imperative.
Then why debate whether the Civil War was about slavery or not? What does it matter?
To this day, including in Iraq, we make decisions of national policy that sometimes violate the national sovereignty of another nation. Making those decisions requires that we address the issue of whether an outside power ever has the right to invade a country in order to stop something that is occuring within the boundaries of that country. Did we have the moral right to invade Iraq because of Saddam's oppression? I think we did, even though it wasn't the Holocaust. It was the Frenchies, etc., who were abrogating moral leadership by basically saying "what happens in Iraq is none of our business."
For one reason. How and where do you draw the line?
You already drew a line, though, with the Holocaust. Right? Look, if you want to say that there is never any justification for violating another country's sovereignity because people are being abused (to whatever extent), fine. But then, you'd have to acknowledge that any nation committing genocide within its borders is entitled to do so. I don't think you're taking that position, so you're obviously drawing a line somewhere.
It is not possible for one nation to police the morals of every society--every nation and force it to comply with a moral imperative.
Agreed, though I have no idea what that has to do with the topic. Just by analogy, I can't stop every single pervert who molests kids. But I'm certainly not going to object if someone else tries to stop it.
Because it's fun... and I learn alot.
You already drew a line, though, with the Holocaust
Oh my word... are you being obtuse on purpose!
I didn't draw a line... I said that you can't compare the Holocaust with Southern Slavery because they don't belong in the same equation...
Now for the rest of your post...
You talk hypothetical in one post and when I respond in a hypothetical you want to bring the conversation back into the real world.
So which is it going to be. Hypothetical or real world situation? Make up my mind because this is getting to be a little silly.
Look, if you want to say that there is never any justification for violating another country's sovereignity because people are being abused (to whatever extent), fine.
I'm typing this very slowly so maybe you will get it. I never said that wasn't a justification for violating another country's sovereignity and you know it. I purposely stated that the way you framed your argument... you did so with out context... it was just an issue sitting in a petrie dish... and IN THAT CONTEXT...No, I do not think it is right to invade another country.
Agreed, though I have no idea what that has to do with the topic. Just by analogy, I can't stop every single pervert who molests kids. But I'm certainly not going to object if someone else tries to stop it.
Well...aren't you a good smug egg. Again, your analogy has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
I'd agree that you can't compare the Holocaust with the motives for the Civil War, because those motives are too complex. But, I don't think its unfair to compare the Holocaust to a hypothetical situation where the elimination of slavery was the sole motive for the War. Because in that case, your comparing 1) genocide to 2) slavery, and seeing whether one or both justifies a violation of national sovereignty.
You talk hypothetical in one post and when I respond in a hypothetical you want to bring the conversation back into the real world.
You bascially argued that hypotheticals were pointless, so I tossed out a situation (Iraq) where the principle identified by the hypothetical might be relevant. I went to the "real world" to show why a moral hypothetical can have value, because you seemed reluctant to address a moral hypothetical.
I never said that wasn't a justification for violating another country's sovereignity and you know it.
Okay, then just say what you believe would constitute a moral justification for violating another country's sovereignity? Genocide? Slavery? One, but not the other?It's not really a complicated or trick question.
When I tossed this out there, I expected those who defend the south's position to agree that the North may have been justified if it had made slavery the sole issue. I really did.
I purposely stated that the way you framed your argument... you did so with out context... it was just an issue sitting in a petrie dish... and IN THAT CONTEXT...No, I do not think it is right to invade another country.
And I'm just trying to find out under what circumstances -- human rights related -- you would find such intervention justifiable. So which is it going to be. Hypothetical or real world situation? Make up my mind because this is getting to be a little silly.
It's obviously a hypothetical, because the Civil War was not about only slavery. As I said, I only went "real world" to show why hypotheticals can be useful in answering moral questions.
Have a great day!
Walt, a 7-2 decision by SCOTUS held that blacks (free or slave) could go into the territories, so the republican position was also against the rule of law and the Constitution.
It was the threat to slavery that brought the war.
And it was on this point of -not- expanding slavery into the national territories that president elect Lincoln said in December 1860:
"On that point hold firm, as with a chain of steel."
Walt
Yes, in part it was the unconstitutional actions of the yankees. I'm glad you agree.
And it was on this point of -not- expanding slavery into the national territories that president elect Lincoln said in December 1860: "On that point hold firm, as with a chain of steel."
Yes, despite all previous rulings by the Sumpreme Court to allow homogenization of blacks into American culture and society, Lincoln still played the race card and advoctated his white supremacist postion.
Like Dred Scott?
Walt
You DO understand the decision ... I knew you could.
Well, some did, and some didn't. But its an interesting point. Do we decide the morality of an action based on the subjective beliefs of the person committing the act? It's pretty clear to see where that road goes. I do agree that the morality of slavery is much more clear today than it was 140 years ago, and that its not fair to judge those people entirely by the standards of today.
Would you okay the invasion to free cattle (property?
No. But then, I endorse someone else trying to enslave people or commit genocide simply because that person has a subjective belief that the people involved are subhuman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.