The Confederacy and States' Rights

[paperview]

The issue of rape, Kevin, has nothing to do with the causes or the outcome of the war.

The Southern White Master Race Democracy was evil, was crushed, and the earth has been better off without it.

No, but you see rape is evil too, and the northern troops were guilty of this.

So were WWII soldiers. Historians note more than 10,000 rapes were committed by soldiers in Europe between 1942 and 1945.

Brutal assholes exist in every war.

Kinda veering aren't we Kevy?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Maybe the difference is, the southerners could do it legally.

Whether it could be done legally or not makes no difference. If you're opposed to rape then you should condemn it whether it was southern slaveowners or northern soldiers committing the act, not rationalize for one and condemn the other.

Who the fuck doesn't condemn rape?

We put to death soldiers found guilty of the crime.

The southerners just went on their merry way after the woman had been brutalized.
What did it matter? She was property.

Legality does matter. I don;t see you condemning those rapes Kevin.

I condemn all violations of a person's natural rights and that certainly includes rape, but you see I don't differentiate between southern slaveowners and northern troops as our friend Jake appeared to be doing.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union. .

They never tried to break up the union anymore than Washington tried to crush the British empire

 

[paperview]

I condemn all violations of a person's natural rights and that certainly includes rape, but you see I don't differentiate between southern slaveowners and northern troops as our friend Jake appeared to be doing

Where did he do that?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No one has said they weren't, Kevin! But that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union. For that is was murdered and slavery ended. Good riddance, say I, to both.

The south was not guilty of treason or trying to break up the Union. The south was "guilty" only of trying to practice their right to self government as espoused in the Declaration of Independence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Confederacy did nothing more than our founders did when they seceded from Great Britain. It was the Confederacy that was fighting for traditional American values, and Lincoln destroyed those values.

 

[JakeStarkey]

that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union. .

They never tried to break up the union anymore than Washington tried to crush the British empire

False conclusion, proletarian. Leaving the Union was breaking it up. The War of Independence was not about breaking up the Empire. The Royal Peace Commission of 1778 understood that entirely in its offer for American autonomy within the empire. The Americans wisely rejected the commission and its offer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The issue of rape, Kevin, has nothing to do with the causes or the outcome of the war.

The Southern White Master Race Democracy was evil, was crushed, and the earth has been better off without it.

No, but you see rape is evil too, and the northern troops were guilty of this.

So were WWII soldiers. Historians note more than 10,000 rapes were committed by soldiers in Europe between 1942 and 1945.

Brutal assholes exist in every war.

Kinda veering aren't we Kevy?

They certainly were. But I fail to see how I'm veering. I'm simply trying to address all the points everyone is bringing up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you mean the value to keep humans as property, the value to suppress democratic expression and press and freedom of assembly ~ then the South, in the name of decency and dignity, in the course of human rights ~ was most appropriately crushed so that it could never rise again.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

that does not excuse the South for treason and trying to break up the Union. .

They never tried to break up the union anymore than Washington tried to crush the British empire

False conclusion, proletarian. Leaving the Union was breaking it up. The War of Independence was not about breaking up the Empire. The Royal Peace Commission of 1778 understood that entirely in its offer for American autonomy within the empire. The Americans wisely rejected the commission and its offer.

How is it different? If a few states leaving the Union was breaking up the Union, then how are the colonies leaving the empire not breaking it up?

 

[JakeStarkey]

False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin. The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages. The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced. That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you mean the value to keep humans as property, the value to suppress democratic expression and press and freedom of assembly ~ then the South, in the name of decency and dignity, in the course of human rights ~ was most appropriately crushed so that it could never rise again.

Then you should be calling for the same of the north. The north should also have been appropriately crushed so that it could never rise again. You see, the north was just as guilty of everything the south was guilty of. Slavery and suppression of natural and constitutional rights for its supposedly free citizens.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.

That's your problem Jake, you don't explain a thing and then declare that a conversation is over so that you can avoid discussing it further. You like to swoop in and make bold declarations, and then attempt to retreat to safety with no further analysis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The North did not embrace slavery in its legal codes.

The North did not suppress assembly and petititon and free debate about slavery as the South did.

Kevin, give it up. You cannot win this argument, ever. The South was crushed because it left the Union to keep slavery.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin. The real issus are that you fail to understand what 'liberty' and 'freedom' have meant philosophically through the ages. The Founders, some of them, anyway, did understand that personal liberty has to be limited at times so that communal freedom can be enhanced. That is why the states were never considered sovereign states by most of the early Founders.

The fact that you do not believe the founders considered the states sovereign and independent betrays your complete ignorance over American history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.

That's your problem Jake, you don't explain a thing and then declare that a conversation is over so that you can avoid discussing it further. You like to swoop in and make bold declarations, and then attempt to retreat to safety with no further analysis.

Every point you made has been crushed, Kevin. That is no "bold declaration". It is the truth.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The North did not embrace slavery in its legal codes.

The North did not suppress assembly and petititon and free debate about slavery as the South did.

Kevin, give it up. You cannot win this argument, ever. The South was crushed because it left the Union to keep slavery.

It didn't? Then why was slavery practiced in five states that remained in the Union?

Again, there were five slave states that remained in the Union. And the north did suppress the freedom of speech and freedom of press under President Lincoln, for its supposedly free citizens.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

False conclusion, I explained it, and the discussion is over, Kevin.

That's your problem Jake, you don't explain a thing and then declare that a conversation is over so that you can avoid discussing it further. You like to swoop in and make bold declarations, and then attempt to retreat to safety with no further analysis.

Every point you made has been crushed, Kevin. That is no "bold declaration". It is the truth.

Others have been willing to discuss my points, and have made good points of their own. You are not numbered among them. You haven't crushed any argument in this thread. You've simply said things are false, and then declared that you are right and I am wrong. That's not an intelligent discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In time of war, Kevin, and that in no way excuses the South trying to illegally leave the Union.

Kevin, all you are doing is looking immorally stubborn now. The weight of evidence is against you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's your problem Jake, you don't explain a thing and then declare that a conversation is over so that you can avoid discussing it further. You like to swoop in and make bold declarations, and then attempt to retreat to safety with no further analysis.

Every point you made has been crushed, Kevin. That is no "bold declaration". It is the truth.

Others have been willing to discuss my points, and have made good points of their own. You are not numbered among them. You haven't crushed any argument in this thread. You've simply said things are false, and then declared that you are right and I am wrong. That's not an intelligent discussion.

Kevin, I and several others have crushed your arguments. Now you are simply being stubborn. This does not reflect well on you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In time of war, Kevin, and that in no way excuses the South trying to illegally leave the Union.

Kevin, all you are doing is looking immorally stubborn now. The weight of evidence is against you.

So freedoms can be suppressed during war? What kind of freedom is it if it can be suppressed whenever a government goes to war? I'd have to say it's not freedom at all.