Sobran's:How Might Makes Right

Sobran's ^ | March, 7, 2002 | Joseph Sobran

[NovemberCharlie]

Finally I can quote chapter and verse of the confederate constitution which shows that the document protected slavery throughout the south and safeguarded the importation of new slaves.

Constitution of the Confederate States, Article I.:

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. You'll forgive me if I find it difficult to interpret this phrase as safeguarding the importation of new slaves, especially since the Confederates' secession would have made it easier for the US to outlaw slavery within its own borders, thus eventually rendering the exception meaningless.

[Non-Sequitur]

You overlook the obvious. Read it again:

The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

It's right there in black and white. The importation of slaves from the United States was specifically protected. At the time this was written there were 8 states in the United States that allowed slavery. Ending it in the U.S. would have been almost as difficult as ending it in the confederacy.

[TEXICAN II]

I said only that slavery was in decline and at an end-I was given this conclusion by the very cost of the slaves and the value of the agricultural enterprise. The end of the system had been seriously entertained in the US Congress and state legislatures-whether to outlaw it outright, purchase the freedom of the slaves ( by buying the owners interest ), or some other scheme.

You are as a stray dog, wandering a neighborhood where your behavior makes you unwelcome, constantly barking insult. You suggest that I would justify or desire the system perptrated 200 years ago should have been continued. The implication is a false and cowardly attempt at insult. I really wonder what is the source of your displeasure-but only a little. It passes immediatly, when I regard your rudeness.

I do not wish to 'silence you'-I only wish to explain how I see you ( and as others may also )-as a rude, ignorant, and antagonistic pest, that seeks only to offend and aggravate people who have done you no harm, threatened none, ask you nothing, and were having a civil and pleasant conversation, not a contest of insult. I think it you who wishes to stifle and interrupt. Your sort seeks only to disrupt & distract, cause unpleasantness where ever you choose. So bark on-but be known for what you are-a petty twit whose only manner of discourse is that of an uncivilized boor. Your antics will gain no more of my attention.

[TEXICAN II]

Inded Sir, you are surely correct-we both chase the same result. Alexis de Tocqueville actually ran the quarry to ground-he said something on the order of, "America will cease to be good when its people do", or words to that effect. The problem is with today's citizen, not with the document.

[koba]

Is it so scary? Let us imagine an America of the year 2015, or so. There will be four major ethnic groups (whites, Hispanics, blacks, asians). Neither one will particularly like the other and would want to take America in different directions. Everyhting would be called into question, economic issues, the legal system, the medical system, foreign policy etc. At this point there would be little agreement on these issues and each group will not feel satisfied with the government, because it is not "their" government. Right now, the whites control everyhting because they have the bulk of the population. This will be less and less the case as time goes on. They will have to give up more and more ground, and they will not like it. The "minorities" will get tired of playing "second-fiddle" to the whites and want to make their "own" decisions, like the South did in 1860. What would be done in a situation like that? One of the reasons the Soviet Union broke up is because the Russian element of the population became less of a percentage overall and the minority percentage increased, making it much more difficult to keep the Soviet Union together. What would happen in a future America with a decrease in the percentage of the white population combined with a dramatic increase in the non-white percentage? Would America still stay together?

[TEXICAN II]

Your reality is scary-scary for the implied violence that may occur. You are on the mark. Mr. Williams suggestion was really not so bad-a civil affair, worked out all legal & polite.

[TEXICAN II]

Actually, Mr. Buchanan's Decline of the West is the next paragraph here.

[koba]

Williams dosen't want to see the potential violence that can happen, and neither do I. I don't think you do either. In 1984 in India, I saw the results of ethnic violence...it wasn't pretty.

I don't know how America is going to go, but there is a potentially rocky future ahead.

[koba]

Buchanan has a "gut-level" feeling about America. Like him or not, he's not one of those "gated-community" politicians, like Bush and Gore are. He fears for the future of America. America had one bloody civil war, I hope it dosen't have another.

[TEXICAN II]

Actually, sir, we have ethnic violence here, today, every day. The media seeks to avoid recognition of this-it does not fit their agenda. Black on Black crime is the rule, sometimes it is Black on White, deliberatly, but far less common. Mexican criminals come here from mexico because they go where there is money-they make up one third of the prison population. Our Left is in a dither because the jails are running over with aliens from mexico and Blacks from America-ipso facto, we are racists & our criminal justice system is racist. The crime is, you see, not at all random. It surely is not yet a regular event of the mob variety-but that could come soon enough. Give us another major terror attack & there will be no safe place for the etnic group of the perpetrators.

[koba]

You're right. Today, blacks kill about four whites per day in inter-racial violence. (SEE "The Race War of Black Against White", Paul Sherwen, Sydney Morning Herald) (SEE "The Color of Crime) (SEE FBI Crime Files)

Blacks kill four whites every day, and these numbers were recorded from 1964. This amounts to over 1,000 whites per year killed by blacks. If you use 1965 as a starting point, you can easily see how over 40,000 whites were killed by blacks. This can be connsidered ethnic warfare.

This kind of ethnic warfare pales in comparison to potential ethnic warfare twenty years from now. This is why I feel that there is a strong possiblity that America may break apart, like the Soviet Union has done.

[TEXICAN II]

The awful fact is that no clear zones or regions are exclusive domains of any ethnic group! We are sadly, entirely inter-mingled & shall struggle all amoungst ourselves. Russia was easy-we shall go down very hard.

[koba]

It's like this... the Hispanics/Asains are moving to the Southwest, the blacks are moving to the South, and the whites are moving to the Pacific Northwest, Midwest, and Northeast. From this, we can conclude that racial lines are already being drawn for the future.

[luvzhottea]

Whatever they may say, most people assume that might makes right.

As did Stalin. They might be able to do what they like but it will never be right, no matter how many spinmeisters and so on they have. Right and wrong are moral absolutes.

[sheltonmac]

bump

[Constitution Day]

Thanks for the bump.

BTTT for later reading.

[Aurelius]

BUMP

[stainlessbanner]

Rush was reading from Madison's Federalist #10 today on his show. Excellent!

[stainlessbanner]

thanks for the bump sheltonmac. methinks the rest of the world does not like the "might makes right" attitude. it's not just.

[Twodees]

Poor ol' Bocephus. Your remark about him is putting it more mildly than I thought possible. I knew an old boy in Texas who used to say of Hank Jr., " If his mama had of named him Clarence he'd have been SOL". ;-)

The boy sure needs the name. He would have starved without it.