cmdrjones wrote:As for the mugger thing, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see it more as a cop on your porch with a warrant written in crayon refusing to go away and daring you to shoot him.... oh and the cop is Canadian.
A warrant for what, exactly? The US government didn't DO
anything to the Confederate states- they seceded in response to the mere fact of having lost an election! There was no tyranny, no abuse, no threat!
And then they immediately started taking federal government property (like cannons from federal arsenals), and ignoring federal laws the Constitution says states have to follow.
Which is where my analogy to muggings shows up- because here you have people who just randomly decide to break the law and take things that do not belong to them. For literally no other reason than that they decided they don't have to follow laws.
As to the second point, obviousl the blacks couldn't do that because they didn't have the power to do so. I wonder if it wouldn't have been better for all concerned if they had.
Thing is, while clearly the blacks had the right
to do so, there is literally no way that the Confederates would have tolerated even a hint of such a thing. Because their desire to own other humans as property was far, far stronger than their alleged commitment to this 'ideal.' This ideal of breaking up every government that looks like it might maybe pass a law that inconveniences some of its citizens.
Which makes the whole claim that the South was seceding over anything recognizable as 'rights,' 'liberties,' or 'freedoms' into a stupid, ridiculous joke. You cannot proclaim yourself above the law and start ignoring election results, in the name of your essential rights
, if you are not prepared to allow other people the essential right to ignore your
laws and election results.
Napoleon the Clown wrote:If the South had representation, while the colonies did not while under British rule, the sedition of the two aren't tremendously comparable.
Oh, but you don't understand, friend! When you are a SOUTHERN PATRIOT, there is no difference between "losing" and "tyranny!" Any government other than one of your fellow SOUTHERN PATRIOTS is simply intolerable, and automatically an evil tyranny, even before it hasn't taken office yet!
I swear, it's like watching an unusually immature kindergardener throw a temper tantrum because they don't want to share the toys, it's mean and the other kid is a bully for asking for a turn!
Captain Seafort wrote:You're talking about the details of each situation - I'm talking about the overarching principle being applied.
Yes, because details matter.
You have to do things for reasons,
believe it or not.
The proto-United States and its leaders of the 1770s actually spent a lot of time and energy explaining exactly what had been done to them as provocation, and what the fundamental basis for their desire to revolt against the British crown was.
It's insulting to their memory to have some yammerhead say "oh, well THEY revolted because THEY disagreed with a policy, so it's ALWAYS okay to revolt because you disagree with ANY policy!"
That is not in fact a principle that was supported or upheld by the Founders, it is not a principle logically consistent with their words and actions.
It is the 'principle' of an utterly unprincipled, selfish, and spoiled mind- as I said above, the kindergardener who thinks he's being bullied because somebody else asked for a turn sharing the toys.
In 1776, the colonists didn't like the way Great Britain was doing things, so they quit. In 1860/61, the southern states didn't like the way the US was doing things, so they quit. I don't consider the differences between the details of "the way X was doing things" to override the fact that the basic principle being applied was the same.
This is like saying "the FBI shot a drug dealer named Smith last week, and sure, I murdered a guy named Smith to take his wallet, but it's okay! The basic principle is that it's okay to kill guys named Smith! It's the same principle!"
Personally, I don't consider that principle to be valid under any circumstances, but the Confederacy wasn't seceding from the Grand Empire of Seafortistan or somesuch - it was seceding from the United States, which was founded on said principle, and in doing so validated it.
The US did not validate the idea of unconditional, unprovoked secession under all circumstances.