The Real Cause of Secession

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
You seem to be missing the point. If you are the Prince, then you demonstrate to me why your order is just. Then I'll decide if it is, and whether or not it will be honored.
That'll be the point that's been way over your head since the beginning. :wink:

Let's explain this one more time. Sloooooooooooowly.

Forms of government are just and in accordance with natural right when they protect individual rights (as outline in the DOI and more thoroughly in Locke). This was the case with the US government to a greater extent than any previous form of government in human history, with the glaring exception (mostly) of those held in slavery.

You can, of course, decide that this was not the case and not honor it. You can, in practical terms, have your revolution and then tell people for the next 160 years that the cause was just.

But what you cannot do it dress it up as justified via a natural rights argument. You don't get to twist those arguments in a way that suits you. If you want it to be a natural right you have to explain where that right comes from and it must include the right to enslave other men. This you are singularly failing to do.
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
That'll be the point that's been way over your head since the beginning. :wink:

Let's explain this one more time. Sloooooooooooowly.

Forms of government are just and in accordance with natural right when they protect individual rights (as outline in the DOI and more thoroughly in Locke). This was the case with the US government to a greater extent than any previous form of government in human history, with the glaring exception (mostly) of those held in slavery.

You can, of course, decide that this was not the case and not honor it. You can, in practical terms, have your revolution and then tell people for the next 160 years that the cause was just.

But what you cannot do it dress it up as justified via a natural rights argument. You don't get to twist those arguments in a way that suits you. If you want it to be a natural right you have to explain where that right comes from and it must include the right to enslave other men. This you are singularly failing to do.

The subtlies of this argument seem to be beyond your grasp, so let me go over it again. Slowly. Very, very sloooooooooooooowly. As slow as Vermont Molasses moves in January. If you are the governing authority, you have the solemn obligation to establish a just civil society. That responsibility is exclusively yours. With me so far? Good. Now then, if you establish an unjust order, or if you fail to maintain a just order, I will, without apology, act to dissolve your unjust order and replace it with a just order. And it is you who will demonstrate to me, that the order is just.

But what you cannot do is establish any political order you choose and call it just. You will not be permitted to corrupt and distort the meaning of a just order to suit your personal political interests. Still with me? OK. You, as the ruling authority, have the obligation to institute sound, fair, and just policies and practices. You have that solemn obligation. Still understand? Good. Now demonstrate to my satisfaction that the political order is just, and I will permit you to remain the ruling authority. If you cannot so demonstrate, you will be removed.

Get it?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Eric Calistri

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
May 31, 2012
Location
Austin Texas
So you're not going to answer?

After you.



As per #1206 above:

1) You seem to be stating that 100% of the slaves were transported by "New England slave-traffickers." Is that actually true?

2) Weren't the Dutch, British, Portugese and Spanish transporting slaves as well?

3) Is your apparent insistence that "New England slave-traffickers" are the only responsible parties based on historical analysis?

4) If so, can you provide that?


Answer these and I will gladly answer yours.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
After you.



As per #1206 above:

1) You seem to be stating that 100% of the slaves were transported by "New England slave-traffickers." Is that actually true?

2) Weren't the Dutch, British, Portugese and Spanish transporting slaves as well?

3) Is your apparent insistence that "New England slave-traffickers" are the only responsible parties based on historical analysis?

4) If so, can you provide that?


Answer these and I will gladly answer yours.

Once again, you seem to be implying that the New England and Northern slave-traffickers have no responsibility for establishing slavery in America. To that end:

1. Did citizens of Massachusetts engage in the trans-atlantic slave-trade?

2. Did citizens of Rhode Island engage in the trans-atlantic slave-trade?

3. Did citizens of New York engage in the trans-atlantic slave-trade?

4. Did citizens of Pennsylvania engage in the trans-atlantic slave -trade?

5. Would you describe the trans-atlantic slave-trade as cruel and barbaric?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
Unlike you, I see slavery as unjust. Even in Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and West Virginia.
How can that be unlike me? I said that is how i felt in the previous message.
Still im surprised you feel that way, since your posts dont reflect it

I also think New England slave-trafficking is unjust.
Surprised to hear it. I feel the same way. I said so earlier in this thread.
 

Duncan

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
How can that be unlike me? I said that is how i felt in the previous message.
Still im surprised you feel that way, since your posts dont reflect it


Surprised to hear it. I feel the same way. I said so earlier in this thread.
Very surprised to hear this. Especially since the U.S. was a slave-republic and you defend their slave-owning vigorously.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
The subtlies of this argument seem to be beyond your grasp, so let me go over it again. Slowly. Very, very sloooooooooooooowly. As slow as Vermont Molasses moves in January. If you are the governing authority, you have the solemn obligation to establish a just civil society. That responsibility is exclusively yours. With me so far? Good. Now then, if you establish an unjust order, or if you fail to maintain a just order, I will, without apology, act to dissolve your unjust order and replace it with a just order. And it is you who will demonstrate to me, that the order is just.

But what you cannot do is establish any political order you choose and call it just. You will not be permitted to corrupt and distort the meaning of a just order to suit your personal political interests. Still with me? OK. You, as the ruling authority, have the obligation to institute sound, fair, and just policies and practices. You have that solemn obligation. Still understand? Good. Now demonstrate to my satisfaction that the political order is just, and I will permit you to remain the ruling authority. If you cannot so demonstrate, you will be removed.

Get it?
The FFs did not create "any political order [they] chose and declare it just". In fact they laid out very clearly in the DOI what the only just political order would look like - one that protects individual rights. Far from corrupting and distorting the meaning of a just order they carefully explained what one was for the whole world to see.

You, on the other hand, are making no claims as to what a just order is. There remains no substance to your argument. You keep asserting your 'right' to overthrow a unjust order, something I doubt anyone here disagrees with you on, but you refuse to answer or avoid saying what just and unjust actually are. If I wasn't so kind I would think you're aware of where this must go and are deliberately avoiding answering it. *cough* slavery *cough*

"if you establish an unjust order, or if you fail to maintain a just order, I will, without apology, act to dissolve your unjust order and replace it with a just order"

There is no issue here, that is exactly what the DOI says and what Locke said, we are in agreement. Isn't that wonderful? The problem is that whereas Jefferson said what an unjust order would be, you have done no such thing.

Now, would you be so kind as to explain what was unjust about the Union in 1860? And, furthermore, what was just about the new political order in the Confederacy? If you're going to talk about justice and rights put some flesh on the bones, tell us what a just order is and tell us how rights fit into that.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top