Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,107 Year: 5,364/9,624 Month: 389/323 Week: 29/204 Day: 5/24 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cause of Civil War
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 24 of 193 (584137)
09-30-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tram law
09-30-2010 2:17 PM


Re: It's all relative
Tram law writes:
The thing is, for northerners it will be about slavery, but Southerners will claim it's about states rights and will ignore the issue of slavery.
Well, sure. However, since the "right" that was the center of the dispute was the alleged right of states to continue slavery, this seems to be a distinction without a difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tram law, posted 09-30-2010 2:17 PM Tram law has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2010 11:32 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 36 of 193 (584248)
10-01-2010 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Blue Jay
09-30-2010 11:32 PM


Re: It's all relative
Blue Jay writes:
If slavery was just the "poster child" for the greater issue, then there is a meaningful distinction to be made.
But what if "state's rights" was just the poster child for the larger issue of slavery?
Blue Jay writes:
The stereotypical conservative stubbornly defends every little tradition they can when they perceive that their way of life is under attack.
Well, no, they don't. For example, I don't see them defending the tradition of outhouses - they much prefer the modern flush toilet.
Blue Jay writes:
The opposition to gay marriage as part of the "Chrisitianity is under attack" worldview is a good example of this.
Sure. However, Christianity is not under attack.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2010 11:32 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 12:17 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 39 of 193 (584256)
10-01-2010 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Blue Jay
10-01-2010 12:17 AM


Re: It's all relative
Blue Jay writes:
I can see how slavery could be seen as an archetype of states' rights, but I can't see how states' rights could be seen as an archetype of the slavery issue.
The point is that if slavery was the only right that they were concerned enough about to consider secession. So it sure looks as if the issue was slavery, and the states rights bit was just an attempt to make it look more principled than it ever was.
Blue Jay writes:
My second form of identification is a literary license.
Well, sure. And my reference to outhouses was intended as a metaphor.
The point is that conservatives are consistently unrealistic.
nwr writes:
However, Christianity is not under attack.
Blue Jay writes:
To them, it is. Surely what they think is the only thing that is relevant to the search for their motivation, right?
The point, again, is that they are being unrealistic. The are offended by the use of the first amendment establishment clause. But the first amendment free exercise clause is what protects them from being under attack. The first amendment is a package. It can't be that they can have complete free exercise of their religion, but that they can deny others the equivalent free exercise.
Evangelical Christianity has done very well in the the USA, compared to how it has fared in other parts of the world. And it is because of the first amendment, that it has done so well. Yet they see the first amendment as a threat. There's some seriously unrealistic thinking going on somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 12:17 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 1:57 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 47 of 193 (584309)
10-01-2010 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Blue Jay
10-01-2010 1:57 AM


Re: It's all relative
Blue Jay writes:
So, when gay-rights proponents argue the "pursuit of happiness" clause, is this also just a smokescreen of principle around an ultimately selfish argument? Or is it actually about the principle?
That's from the declaration of independence, not from the constitution.
I see the gay rights people making a grass roots campaign to persuade the population, rather than a legal campaign based on the constitution. Yes, there are also court cases, though I haven't closely followed the arguments used there. But I also view the court cases as skirmishes the grass roots campaign. It is all about winning the hearts and minds of the population.
If you want to compare that to what happened around the time of the civil war, then at that time there was also a grass roots campaign to win the hearts and minds of the population. The abolitionist's won that campaign. Incidentally, the gay rights advocates seem to be winning their grass roots campaign.
Blue Jay writes:
The fact that there is a principle that could, in theory, defend their position, and that it is the very principle that they appeal to, should at least give you pause in ruling on their motivation.
Their states right issue was a fair principle to use in the grass roots campaign. They lost that campaign. The only principle I can see behind secession, was the "sore loser" principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 1:57 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 1:57 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 74 of 193 (584387)
10-01-2010 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Blue Jay
10-01-2010 1:57 PM


Re: It's all relative
Blue Jay writes:
The results of the grassroots campaign seem to have been divided regionally.
If the South had been able to generate more support in the North, even if less than a majority, there probably wouldn't have been a civil war.
Blue Jay writes:
... In each of these cases, regional majorities that were minorities on the national level, broke away from the mother nation simply because they didn't get their way.
In your examples, the groups managed to garner a lot of support from outside their own regions, and that is how they gained legitimacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 1:57 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 4:56 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 80 of 193 (584406)
10-01-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Blue Jay
10-01-2010 4:56 PM


Re: It's all relative
Blue Jay writes:
... about whether the Southern cause was legitimately based on principles ...
I don't think that is an objective issue. We can at best express our opinions.
Blue Jay writes:
Your arguments seem to be leading to the conclusion that the war and its outcome were the result of the practical failures of the Confederacy in matters of politics, and their unwillingness to concede these practical failures.
If you want to put it that way, then I think "inevitable failures" would be more accurate than "practical failures." They were on the wrong side of a moral argument. There was no way that they could win that argument, which had started in Britain (I think), and spread to USA.
I am describing it in terms of politics for two reasons. Firstly, I don't want to impose 21st century moral views on their thinking, and secondly you compared it to the gay rights issue which is currently being argued as a grass roots campaign to capture the moral sensitivities of people.
When a group is on the wrong side of a major moral issue, and they argue that is a matter of defending some principle rather than their position on that moral issue, that is bound to ring hollow.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2010 4:56 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2010 5:54 PM nwr has replied
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2010 10:27 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 82 of 193 (584414)
10-01-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by New Cat's Eye
10-01-2010 5:54 PM


Re: off topic side comment
New Cat's Eye writes:
I participated in one of the gay marriage threads with the position that I didn't care if they got married or not but that the constitution didn't imply that they must have the right, and there were still assholes going all:
ZOMG! U JUST HATE TEH GAYZ!!!
Okay. But weren't you just expressing an opinion? It doesn't seem comparable to secession.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-01-2010 5:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 87 of 193 (584509)
10-02-2010 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Blue Jay
10-02-2010 10:27 AM


Re: The Morality of States' Rights
Blue Jay writes:
They would argue that they were on the right side of a different moral argument, and that the propaganda (what you called a "grass roots campaign") had convinced everybody that it was a less important moral debate than the one about slavery.
Well, sure, they would argue that. But it doesn't follow that we have to accept that argument.
Humans have this remarkable ability, called rationalizing, whereby we invent explanation that put us in a good light. At the time of apartheid in South Africa, there was a lot of rationalization of that, too. The current Israeli government rationalizes its program of settlements in the Palestinian territories.
To really settle the issue, you would have to be able to read minds. But I cannot not even trust my reading of my own mind about what I thought yesterday. So we have to accept that this not really a factual issue at all. It is an issue about which we have to make our own judgments, and those judgments are unavoidably subjective. You should take what I have posted in this thread as an indication of how I judge the issues - but with no guarantee that I won't have a different opinion next year.
Blue Jay writes:
That's why Southerners are still disgruntled about the whole thing today
As I see it, they are disgruntled because they lost. And they rationalized as a way of dealing with their disgruntlement, then they chose to believe their own rationalizations.
For myself, I was born and raised in Australia, so I am not part of this dispute. That is, I do not have any sense of belonging to either side. I did find the abolitionist case to be persuasive. The "States Rights" case rings hollow, particularly when I see it mainly being used to support racist attitudes (recently by Rand Paul, for example).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2010 10:27 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 114 of 193 (585182)
10-06-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Blue Jay
10-02-2010 12:45 PM


Re: The Morality of States' Rights
Blue Jay writes:
What can we say about the Union perspective during that time period? Was Lincoln's interest in the conflict originally about slavery? Or was it originally about something else, and only came to be about slavery as a political move later on?
I notice that Theodoric is somewhat summing up in recent posts such as Message 109. Since I haven't yet commented on the above point by Blue Jay, perhaps now is the time to do so.
It has been my impression that, from the union perspective, preserving the union was a major motivation.
We have, I think, been mainly talking about the reasons behind those who chose to secede and those who decided to commit to opposing the secession - that is, the leadership on both sides. What motivated the rank and file could be significantly different. During political seasons, we see all kinds of propaganda, and I expect it was the same at the time of the civil war. So we might expect a wider variety of motivations for the rank and file, than from the leadership.
Although most of the discussion here has been contrary to the view that Artemis Entreri was expressing, it is quite possible that he got that view passed down through several generations, and it might reflect what his ancestors believed that they were fighting for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2010 12:45 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(3)
Message 172 of 193 (890863)
01-11-2022 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Phat
01-11-2022 2:41 AM


Re: Could it happen again?
Some of us believe that the government has no right or mandate to legislate morality.
You must live in some alternate reality.
I have seen the government legislate policy. I have never seen it legislate morality.
Perhaps you do not understand the difference.
My grandfather never owned slaves.
Nor did mine. So what?
White people can not be held collectively responsible for a crime that not all of them participated in.
I agree. But what does that have to do with reparations?
Are you saying that if the city make a mistake and accidentally bulldozes your house, then the city would not have to pay you for repairs because the taxpayers were not the ones who made the mistake? That sure seems to be foolish reasoning.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Phat, posted 01-11-2022 2:41 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Phat, posted 01-11-2022 11:44 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 179 of 193 (890883)
01-11-2022 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Phat
01-11-2022 11:44 AM


Re: Could it happen again?
Where does one begin and when should we stop?
Isn't that what legislative bodies are for?
Also, my argument gets defensive when I imagine it as solely a liberal agenda.
Then maybe you should stop imagining it that way.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Phat, posted 01-11-2022 11:44 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 183 of 193 (890899)
01-11-2022 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by jar
01-11-2022 12:18 PM


Re: Where to begin and when to end?
We need to constantly and honestly examine the behavior and policies of the US, acknowledge when they have done harm and are evil, repent such errors, try to make amends and sincerely try not to continue making the same errors.
Absolutely agree. And this is Christianity.
It is sad that so many of the people who claim to be Christian are failing at Christianity 101.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by jar, posted 01-11-2022 12:18 PM jar has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6438
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(4)
Message 190 of 193 (890958)
01-12-2022 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Theodoric
01-12-2022 8:50 AM


Re: Any sources? Any?
Who is they?
As best I can tell, the "they" that LamarkNewAge is talking about in this thread is identical to the ether that Michael MD is talking about in An Ether-Based Creation Model. It is just vaporware.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Theodoric, posted 01-12-2022 8:50 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024