Have We Reconciled

Old Virginia Blog ^ | April 13, 2011 | Richard Williams

[SWAMPSNIPER]

There is a simple explanation, the Northern laboring class is simply too stupid to have any exploitable comic value.

[Lees Swrd]

You know I find it odd whenever this Country goes in to help another Country we are always I say again always on the side of the South is this the government telling us what side is always right The Southern part of the country. The north is always were the nuts live.

[Pelham]

“No it’s because your side lost.”

So Hanoi says to Saigon. The PRC to Tibet. And Islam would like to say to Israel.

I’m not sure “because your side lost” tells us much.

[Pelham]

“Does that mean you openly admit that it was a rebellion and not a secession?”

“Openly admit”? Are you for real?

It was rebellion as far as King George and Abe Lincoln were concerned.

It was secession as far as the Continental Congress and the Confederacy were concerned.

Now instead of posing new questions for me to answer it’s time for you to start answering mine from #79.

[Pelham]

“There is a simple explanation, the Northern laboring class is simply too stupid to have any exploitable comic value.”

Fred Allen’s radio show “Allen’s Alley” had a comic character in “stoic New England farmer Titus Moody”.

It would seem that New Englanders are more lost to popular culture than that they lack comic value. Just look at who they have been electing in recent years.

[phi11yguy19]

Exactly. Rawle's book was taught at West Point from its release in 1825 until 1840. The quote from C.F. Adams' Constitutional Ethics of Secession:

It is however a noticeable fact that anterior to 1840 the doctrine of the right of secession seems to have been inculcated at West Point as an admitted principle of Constitutional Law.

As "inculcation" doesn't happen in "one year or at two most" (more likely the '15 years or at most 16' between '25 and '40), x's "maybe, maybe not" and "brief" theories, backed by "most serious scholars" can be safely dismissed.

Amusingly, although Adams, Story and Rawle were all rabid Federalists and personally against secession (putting them in the 99th percentile since no one WANTED secession except as a last resort), Rawle (Pennsylvanian lawyer, and president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society - not exactly a friend of the South) didn't let that interfere with his legal analysis. The next part after your quote:

The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitutions. But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the people of a state, it must be manifested in a direct and unequivocal manner.

Story's Commentaries ultimately flipped Rawle's "admitted principle of Constitutional law" on it's head, without an amendment, court decision, or other act to justify the change. Of course it had the convenience of being released after the passing of the founders' generation and before the debates on the Constitution had been made public, so the resources we have now to refute this fallacy weren't readily available.

Unfortunately, many will still argue the legality of the issue as if it were something set in stone, so Lincoln's heinous acts were all legally vindicated. Fortunately, x wasn't around to decide which "b*st*rds" should be hung. The war and Reconstruction were horrible enough.

[rockrr]

It was secession as far as the Continental Congress and the Confederacy were concerned.

The Continental Congress was honest enough to consider their actions open rebellion against the crown. More than I can say for the feckless confeds - and their fanboys.

[phi11yguy19]

I’m not sure “because your side lost” tells us much.

Reminds me of a couple quotes:

"[L]et us remember...that while events, the successes of ruthless power, the overthrow of innocence may greatly modify the expedient, they have no concern whatever in determining the right."

"It is only the atheist who adopts success as the criterion of right."

[Pelham]

That’s your second post to me after my post #79.

So far you haven’t addressed any of the questions I posed for you in that post.

Do you need more time? Or are you just going to “pass” again? I would have at least expected some snickering. You can do better. Give an answer a try.

[rockrr]

Buried someplace in all that verbal compost I found this: Looking back at all this do you side with America’s Planter Class or poor old King George?

I reject the framing of your question.

[Pelham]

Good find. I have a couple of his books in my library, including that one. I’ll have to bookmark that site.

[Pelham]

Let’s see... an ad hominem followed by a refusal to address the question. Doesn’t appear to be much snickering there.

You’re not having much luck, are you rocky? Looks like you’re giving up.

Maybe it’s not too late for you to drop the class without getting a failing grade. Maybe we should poll the thread.

[rockrr]

What ad hominem? I refused nothing...I rejected the fallacious nature of your straw-man question. If you’re doing the grading than I’ve already failed according to your skewed “standards” in which case I have nothing to lose by stating the truth.

[Pelham]

“What ad hominem?”

‘Verbal compost. Apparently that’s supposed to pass for intelligent defense of your argument. What interests me is that you avoid responding to the points in the post.

I listed a number of political radicals that supported the Union cause during the Civil War. You didn’t contest any of them. Not that it would do you much good. Radicals of that era saw the Union cause as their own and the evidence is easy to produce.

I asked you to produce evidence of radicals who supported the Confederacy so that you could back up your claim that “there was nothing ‘conservative’ about the Confederacy”. So far you have produced nothing.

“I refused nothing...I rejected the fallacious nature of your straw-man question. “

Of course you’re refusing to answer.

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe belonged to what you are calling the ‘Planter Class’. Which itself is an interesting phrase coming from someone who refused to comment on Marx and Engels’ view of the Civil War.

Of this ‘Planter Class’ you say:

“How is perpetuating the Planter Class and the abominable practice of slavery a conservative principle?”

A fair reading of your comment is that the Planter Class was abominable due to their support of slavery and that they were lacking conservative principle. If you disagree with that characterization then explain what you did mean.

This Planter Class was a leading element in rebelling against the Crown. Their enemy, King George, emancipated slaves who swore loyalty to the Crown.

So King George was in the same moral position as the Great Emancipator of 90 years later. Head of the legitimate government. Seeking to crush a secessionist rebellion. An emancipator of slaves.

The Planter Class of Washington was in them same moral position of their Planter Class descendants. Slave owning rebels. Seeking to secede from a legal government which was emancipating slaves.

Since you claim that this is fallacious, point out where the error is. It should be easy for you to do.

[dixiechick2000]

If you mean all that you said in your post, then don’t say things like this...

“So is your wife going to leave when she recovers her eyesight?”

...to wardaddy, or any other FReeper, again.

BTW, I’m not just from the Fightin’ Irish...I’m from the Fightin’ Scots Irish.

[mojitojoe]

Agree!! Ken Burns is a complete a$$.

[mojitojoe]

LMAO!!

[mojitojoe]

I know, you’re a white, guilt affected liberal bedwetter, right.
____________________________

Is he ever!!! Danm, you nailed it.

[mojitojoe]

Well, at least you are consist in being wrong.

____________________

English please.

[mojitojoe]

JERK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!