2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
I think most people are making an emotional argument when they say the South didn't have the "right" to secede but the 13 colonies, or Vietnam, or China, or India, or African independence movements did. We all hate slavery, and you'd be hard pressed to find a person who wished the South won, but saying one is legal because you agree with the cause and one isn't because you hate the cause is a simple double standard.
There are no such thing as rights, only force. If the South had won the Civil War
absolutely agree in terms of Western liberal thought.
many others do actually believe in inalienable rights of all men and women. but I doubt the West ever looks at it this way.
There’s a huge problem that happens in political discussions where we try to compare two things without understanding how the two things are disanalogous. I’m not saying you shouldn’t compare the American revolution to the Civil War, but you have to understand particularly why those two things diverge and why they aren’t the same thing.
If someone was to say that the South had no right to secede because no one should ever be able to leave a country they are under the contr
This seems like a long-winded attempt to double down on the emotional fallacy I pointed out.
The South fought for slavery and illiberal values and turned to violence immediately so their secession was bad, but the colonies fought for freedom and liberalism and at least tried to negotiate first so their secession was good.
Your personal opinion of the cause of secession or your belief in liberal values is irrelevant to the legality thereof. Further, the law itself as it was written is irrelevant, or any 'legal channels' a state goes through in their attempt to secede. Law only matters insofar there is a monopoly of force by a power willing to enforce it. We enjoy liberal values in our society today because our political, legal and police forces have monopoly power to enforce those values. War, on the other hand, is the determination of whose force is in possession of that monopoly. The Vietnamese or the Americans, the Revolutionaries or the British, the North or the South, India or Great Britain, the Axis or the Allies---you get the picture.
If the South had won, there is little reason to believe anyone now (in the south at least) would have considered their secession 'illegal' because as the winners it would have been de facto legal. In a similar vein, the Nazis had codified oppression and disenfranchisement of the Jews and other racial minorities throughout their legal system during their tenure, but they lost the war and hence a new force dictated to that people what they were to believe and what laws they were to follow. Had they won, it's pretty obvious a large percentage of that population would be justifying it as a legal oppression. In the United States, the victors of the Civil War determined secession's legality (hint: it isn't) despite that being a hotly debated topic from 1776-1861.
I guess my main point is just pointing out how flawed anyone on either side of the argument about secession's legality is. It's legal if you win, and illegal if you lose. Lastly, it is my firm and probably not controversial belief that if secession or 'opting out' of a constitution or State isn't legal or legal paths aren't made to enable it, then it virtually guarantees future violence. I'm not in principal opposed to this, I think you can make the argument that liberal values are worth fighting and killing for. On the other hand, I think you can also make the argument that fighting and killing people to force them to live by your values (even if they are liberal ones) is also immoral. I lean pretty strongly on the side of "live and let live" rather than the other way, but I can see both sides.
This seems like a long-winded attempt to double down on the emotional fallacy I pointed out.
Your personal opinion of the cause of secession or your belief in liberal values is irrelevant to the legality thereof. Further, the law itself as it was written is irrelevant, or any 'legal channels' a state goes through in their attempt to secede. Law only matters insofar there is a monopoly of force by a power willing to enforce it. We enjoy liberal values in our society today because our political, l
The idea that history is written by the victors isn't exactly novel.
.
if the South wouldnt have seceded then we probably still have slavery today. (I mean, we still do but not in the same form). liberals would be lecturing us on why "they just arent ready yet" and pointing to all the slave revolts and armed resistance they had mustered over the centuries.
if the South wouldnt have seceded then we probably still have slavery today. (I mean, we still do but not in the same form). liberals would be lecturing us on why "they just arent ready yet" and pointing to all the slave revolts and armed resistance they had mustered over the centuries.
Good point. That would explain why slavery is still prevalent worldwide: other slave-owning nations don't have a "South" to secede.
Good point. That would explain why slavery is still prevalent worldwide: other slave-owning nations don't have a "South" to secede.
Lol. But yeah, the reason the south sent for broke was that with the election of Lincoln the writing was on the wall. Not in the next 4 years or even if Lincoln served 3 terms but the political power was in the north and slavery would be outlawed in western territories that would become free states and eventually they would have the votes to amend the constitution to outlaw slavery. At least that’s my recollection of the consensus from history 101 with Prof kruse. I think I got a c though so take that for what it’s worth.
Good point. That would explain why slavery is still prevalent worldwide: other slave-owning nations don't have a "South" to secede.
its pretty prevalent
lol you
if the South wouldnt have seceded then we probably still have slavery today. (I mean, we still do but not in the same form). liberals would be lecturing us on why "they just arent ready yet" and pointing to all the slave revolts and armed resistance they had mustered over the centuries.
I think it would have died a natural death due to the liberalizing factors of technology and globalization, but there were attempts to prolong it indefinitely if it meant the prevention of war. What an alternate history that would have been, a unified America with slavery enshrined in the Constitution lol
I think it would have died a natural death due to the liberalizing factors of technology and globalization, but there were attempts to prolong it indefinitely if it meant the prevention of war. What an alternate history that would have been, a unified America with slavery enshrined in the Constitution lol
one of Marx's few ideas that was proven wrong was the prediction that technology would allow the worker to raise up. in fact technology is used to keep them down and it would have been used to keep slaves in their place.
one of Marx's few ideas that was proven wrong was the prediction that technology would allow the worker to raise up. in fact technology is used to keep them down and it would have been used to keep slaves in their place.
Another one of his ideas proven wrong was that workers want to rise up at all. But they certainly don't when they get 2 for 1 Big Macs on the McDonald's app.
This seems like a long-winded attempt to double down on the emotional fallacy I pointed out.
Well I think your whole point is very “I’m very smart”, “I’m fourteen and this is deep” style argumentation that most people grow out of, but I tried to engage in actual points instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Your personal opinion of the cause of secession or your belief in liberal values is irrelevant to the legality thereof. Further, the law itself as it was written is irrelevant, or any 'legal channels' a state goes through in their attempt to secede. Law only matters insofar there is a monopoly of force by a power willing to enforce it. We enjoy liberal values in our society today because our political, legal and police forces have monopoly power to enforce those values. War, on the other hand, is the determination of whose force is in possession of that monopoly. The Vietnamese or the Americans, the Revolutionaries or the British, the North or the South, India or Great Britain, the Axis or the Allies---you get the picture.
If the South had won, there is little reason to believe anyone now (in the south at least) would have considered their secession 'illegal' because as the winners it would have been de facto legal. In a similar vein, the Nazis had codified oppression and disenfranchisement of the Jews and other racial minorities throughout their legal system during their tenure, but they lost the war and hence a new force dictated to that people what they were to believe and what laws they were to follow. Had they won, it's pretty obvious a large percentage of that population would be justifying it as a legal oppression. In the United States, the victors of the Civil War determined secession's legality (hint: it isn't) despite that being a hotly debated topic from 1776-1861.
Yes when you win a war you win a war, no one is denying that. The point is whether Lincoln was in the moral right to engage in Civil War and why secession is categorically different from the Revolutionary War. I know this might seem strange to people who are anti-liberal but not every secession or revolution is the same just because they involve a restructuring of borders and controlling powers.
Secession is unconstitutional but the framers gave a way to enact secession: amend the constitution to create a legal process to secede.
I don’t know why you’re stuck on the point about the legality of oppressing Jews or holding slaves, obviously everything was probably kosher in terms of German laws, just as slavery was kosher in American laws. The war was fought over slavery, but the main issue in contention was how much containment would slavery have. The South wanted slavery to be legal everywhere, and when they saw that it wouldn’t be they seceded. Lincoln would have favored a compromise to preserve the Union though, the South just didn’t want a compromise. They wanted their own country and didn’t want to use the available political channels to do it because they would not accept a political loss.
So when we draw a distinction there between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, don’t pretend that because both involved establishing a new country they can be justified in the same avenue.
I guess my main point is just pointing out how flawed anyone on either side of the argument about secession's legality is. It's legal if you win, and illegal if you lose. Lastly, it is my firm and probably not controversial belief that if secession or 'opting out' of a constitution or State isn't legal or legal paths aren't made to enable it, then it virtually guarantees future violence. I'm not in principal opposed to this, I think you can make the argument that liberal values are worth fighting and killing for. On the other hand, I think you can also make the argument that fighting and killing people to force them to live by your values (even if they are liberal ones) is also immoral. I lean pretty strongly on the side of "live and let live" rather than the other way, but I can see both sides.
Secession was illegal and so was the revolutionary war, yes. The question is whether or not there is some symmetry breaker between the two, which I think there obviously is. The colonies had no legal way of having their grievances addressed whereas the South did. The South just didn’t want to have to pursue the legal avenues.
Obviously since I’m a liberal I’m not in principle opposed to revolution or secession or pursuing independence, so if I’m saying I support one act of political rebellion over another it’s not going to cache out in a legal principle but rather a moral principle. It just so happens that the moral principle in question is also a legal/political issue and what sorts of ways can grievances be redressed. Because they had an avenue to redress their grievances but just didn’t want to use legal avenues, even if you agree with their grievances you shouldn’t agree with their solution. That’s what makes them uniquely traitorous in a way that I find especially disgusting.
if the South wouldnt have seceded then we probably still have slavery today. (I mean, we still do but not in the same form). liberals would be lecturing us on why "they just arent ready yet" and pointing to all the slave revolts and armed resistance they had mustered over the centuries.
If the US had never had a revolution, the entire Western Hemisphere would have been colonized still. Does that trigger you? That we are the reason that other countries yearn for freedom? That we are the shining beacon on the hill?
US Pill = freedom
Commie Pill = death, famine, autarchy, totalitarianism
Well I think your whole point is very “I’m very smart”, “I’m fourteen and this is deep” style argumentation that most people grow out of, but I tried to engage in actual points instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Nothing I said was ad hominem.
If you want to argue that slavery was bad, no one will argue with you. However, arguing that southern secession was illegal and bad because slavery is bad and revolutionary secession was legal and good because liberalism is good is a really poor, emotional argument. What you think about each of these respective causes has absolutely nothing to do with whether secession is legal or not. In the case of the Confederacy, secession was illegal because the North both opposed it and won. Simple as that. It doesn't matter why the south seceded.
Yes when you win a war you win a war, no one is denying that. The point is whether Lincoln was in the moral right to engage in Civil War and why secession is categorically different from the Revolutionary War. I know this might seem strange to people who are anti-liberal but not every secession or revolution is the same just because they involve a restructuring of borders and controlling powers.
It has to be categorically different for you, because if they were categorically the same you'd be caught in a contradiction, and you can't allow that because you emotionally believe in one cause and not the other. There's nothing wrong with believing that, I happen to agree with you. But they aren't really as different as you're making them out to be.
Secession is unconstitutional but the framers gave a way to enact secession: amend the constitution to create a legal process to secede.
Sure, but a civil war happening precludes any legal ability to secede. If they had the legal right, there'd be no reason to fight.
I don’t know why you’re stuck on the point about the legality of oppressing Jews or holding slaves, obviously everything was probably kosher in terms of German laws, just as slavery was kosher in American laws. The war was fought over slavery, but the main issue in contention was how much containment would slavery have. The South wanted slavery to be legal everywhere, and when they saw that it wouldn’t be they seceded. Lincoln would have favored a compromise to preserve the Union though, the South just didn’t want a compromise. They wanted their own country and didn’t want to use the available political channels to do it because they would not accept a political loss.
If there were legal channels to self-govern, the civil war wouldn't have started. The civil war happened (all wars happen) precisely because legal channels become exhausted. The new states west of the southern states were being inhabited and colonized primarily by southerners. Of course they wanted slavery to spread to those states and of course they would be pissed the Federal Government was attempting to prevent it. That was just one of many grievances the south had which led to war, but war still happened ultimately because they couldn't be resolved politically.
So when we draw a distinction there between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, don’t pretend that because both involved establishing a new country they can be justified in the same avenue.
Anything is justified by force, that's my point. The major difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War is that the Colonists won and the South lost. In either counter-scenario, the revolution would be considered "illegal and immoral." If Germany had won the war the holocaust would have been considered a great victory against the enemies of the German people. We won, and it's (rightly) considered a horrible genocide.
Secession was illegal and so was the revolutionary war, yes. The question is whether or not there is some symmetry breaker between the two, which I think there obviously is. The colonies had no legal way of having their grievances addressed whereas the South did. The South just didn’t want to have to pursue the legal avenues.
War breaks out when the political or legal channels are exhausted or frustrated, which happened in both cases. Slavery (and the legality of secession) was a hotly debated topic for decades before 1861, and many attempts were made to keep the country together prior to the outbreak of war. I don't know why you think the South just came out guns blazing out of nowhere in 1861, that's not historically accurate, at all.
Obviously since I’m a liberal I’m not in principle opposed to revolution or secession or pursuing independence, so if I’m saying I support one act of political rebellion over another it’s not going to cache out in a legal principle but rather a moral principle. It just so happens that the moral principle in question is also a legal/political issue and what sorts of ways can grievances be redressed. Because they had an avenue to redress their grievances but just didn’t want to use legal avenues, even if you agree with their grievances you shouldn’t agree with their solution. That’s what makes them uniquely traitorous in a way that I find especially disgusting.
There's nothing wrong with arguing you like the Revolutionaries but hate the Confederacy. All I was saying is that tying your subjective moral agreement or disagreement for each cause to your assessment of the legality of the secessions is a fallacy.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence fully understood they were committing treason. They even joked about it; "We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
Nobody argues the Revolutionary War was legal. Most people just argue it no longer made sense for the colonies to be ruled by a King and Parliament an ocean away. That confederate secession was legal was an argument made by Lost Cause confederate apologists well after the war ended because it was hard to justify it on the basis of the moral good of slavery.
Getting back to the election for a moment, Kamala came out in favor of legalizing marijuana fully, which is a first for a presidential candidate. As a result, Trump made a post on Truth Social saying that he is in favor of decriminalization for personal use and states rights when it comes to states that choose to legalize.
The records on this show a stronger indication for Kamala and the Biden admin in terms of the marijuana legalization front. They are moving to reschedule marijuana to a class 3 controlled substance, acknowledging its medicinal uses. Kamala is apparently promising to go even further and completely legalizing it federally for recreational use. Trump did have some wins in terms of pardons, especially on his last day in office. However, Biden has established blanket pardons for low level marijuana possession offenses, which goes much further than Trump.
Cannabis banking is still a big issue to be addressed yet to be addressed by both administrations, because it exists in a scary legal gray area for both the businesses and the financial services/banking services companies that accept their money. Another big issue is the international status of marijuana, which is still a huge issue that needs to be addressed if we want to be able to prevent gangs from profiting off of black market marijuana sales. Going forward we are probably looking at international treaties that deal with the status of the international marijuana trade, building need for international supply chains and due diligence. Is the US going to be the world’s supplier of marijuana going forward under a Harris administration? These small advantages that we can have might be quite significant in 50 years as Western nations start to relax their marijuana policies.
So for those keeping score at home it’s now 2-1 in terms of policies copied. Kamala copied the no tax on tips policy, Trump copied the IVF and pro-marijuana policy.
Nobody argues the Revolutionary War was legal. Most people just argue it no longer made sense for the colonies to be ruled by a King and Parliament an ocean away.
A very similar argument was made by southerners in the 1860s, that it made no sense for industrialized northerners to have total rule over their agrarian slave owning society. As wrong as they might have been, the vast majority of southerners in the Civil War earnestly believed they were fighting the second American revolution. I don't agree with them, but it's pretty clear from their writings, letters home and journals that's what they believed.
That confederate secession was legal was an argument made by Lost Cause confederate apologists well after the war ended because it was hard to justify it on the basis of the moral good of slavery.
Both secessions were clearly illegal, or the parent state wouldn't have opposed them to the point of war. If the revolutionaries had lost, they wouldn't be seen as freedom fighters or the birthers of a new republic but reactionary villains attempting to overthrow the God ordained rule of the King.
Both secessions were clearly illegal, or the parent state wouldn't have opposed them to the point of war. If the revolutionaries had lost, they wouldn't be seen as freedom fighters or the birthers of a new republic but reactionary villains attempting to overthrow the God ordained rule of the King.
Yes, both were illegal. Confederate revisionists pretend like one wasn't. Eventually colonialism would have failed regardless, so unlikely failed American revolutionaries would be seen like confederates rightly are today.
Nothing I said was ad hominem.
If you want to argue that slavery was bad, no one will argue with you. However, arguing that southern secession was illegal and bad because slavery is bad and revolutionary secession was legal and good because liberalism is good is a really poor, emotional argument. What you think about each of these respective causes has absolutely nothing to do with whether secession is legal or not. In the case of the Confederacy, secession was illegal because the North both oppo
I fear that you’re not understanding at all that I never said that the Revolutionary War was legal. I said they had no legal channel to contravene Britain’s policies and were explicitly not given representation at all in parliament. The South was in a completely different situation factually that makes their situation disanalogous.
Maybe I should clarify, are you saying it’s hypocritical to support the Revolution but not support Secession? Or are you saying it’s hypocritical to say that the Revolution was legal but Southern secession wasn’t? Because the latter I don’t say.
There's nothing wrong with arguing you like the Revolutionaries but hate the Confederacy. All I was saying is that tying your subjective moral agreement or disagreement for each cause to your assessment of the legality of the secessions is a fallacy.
I don’t see what moral subjectivism has to do with this except that all moral disagreement is just disagreement about individual preferences. This has much more to do with a categorical imperative that I am setting out and then violating. By calling me a hypocrite you must be saying there is a moral axiom that a prescribe in others that I don’t hold myself to.
And again I never said there was some legality to the Revolution, I just identified a moral right to the Revolution due to having no possible legal recourse. The South did have a legal recourse, they just didn’t want to lose their political battle.
I don’t believe that if I think marijuana should be legal federally but I don’t get my way, that this gives me a right to advocate for secession for the states that have it legal. You don’t get to just dissolve the Union because you are unsatisfied with some of the laws or who is president. If you believe you should have the legal right to secede in the US, you can always amend the constitution. That’s the beauty about our system, it doesn’t just break under pressure, but it is malleable. These people were tyrants who were unhappy they weren’t politically popular despite having every head start including the insane 3/5ths compromise. To say they had no possible legal avenue is just pro-Confederacy revisionism. They just weren’t satisfied with not being able to be tyrants.
If a slave owned by George Washington happened to escape the plantation and, while on the run accidently encountered Washington who was trying to capture him, the slave would be doing nothing wrong if he shot Washington dead.
If a slave was with a friend of any color, that friend would be doing nothing wrong if he shot Washington dead.
If a group of slaves could be freed by shooting dead a group of slave owners their friends would be doing nothing wrong if they shot those slave owners dead.
If that group of slaves was in a country populated by only slaveholders and no innocents, then people in a different country would be doing nothing wrong if they started killing every one of those slaveholders until the slaves were free
Whether the slaveholding country was originally part of the country that helped freed the slaves would be irrelevant. That adds not one iota to the justification to kill those slaveholders. All this legality stuff and secession/politics stuff is inconsequential compared to freeing slaves.
So is bothering to argue the Revolutionary War compared to Civil War. Ironically the only connection is that the British promised to free the slaves if they won. They probably made that promise not because they cared about slaves but because they thought it would help them win. And they might have not kept their promise. But if it was certain that they would, then the wrong side won the Revolutionary War.
Spain didn't give Catalonians their own country before the EU came into existence either.
Also, you are delusional (or have a profound misunderstanding of the United States) if you think that Nebraska is to the United States as Spain is to the EU.
Nebraska is to the USA as Spain is to the EU, if you account the EU is 32 years old.
Nebraska in 1808 was to the USA roughly what Spain is today to the EU, actually the EU is moving faster to kill state rights than the USA did.
Getting back to the election for a moment, Kamala came out in favor of legalizing marijuana fully, which is a first for a presidential candidate. As a result, Trump made a post on Truth Social saying that he is in favor of decriminalization for personal use and states rights when it comes to states that choose to legalize.
The records on this show a stronger indication for Kamala and the Biden admin in terms of the marijuana legalization front. They are moving to reschedule marijuana to a class 3
Kamala/Biden copied the Chinese tariffs.
as for cannabis can you please tell me what the actual **** do you mean with "moving to reschedule", they always had full power to reschedule and it could have happened a while ago.
for absurd and fully unconstitutional reasons rescheduling is a purely executive act and Biden controls the executive.
If a slave owned by George Washington happened to escape the plantation and, while on the run accidently encountered Washington who was trying to capture him, the slave would be doing nothing wrong if he shot Washington dead.
If a slave was with a friend of any color, that friend would be doing nothing wrong if he shot Washington dead.
If a group of slaves could be freed by shooting dead a group of slave owners their friends would be doing nothing wrong if they shot those slave owners dead.
If tha
It’s hard to deal with historical counterfactuals. On the one hand, I share your disgust of slavery and slaveowners. On the other hand, the establishment of the US as an independent country was one of the greatest boons to liberalism and the free world. Many states outlawed slavery far before Britain ever did. And the outlawing of the international slave trade happened only one year later in the US.
I think the success of the US probably precipitated the freedom afforded to other British colonies. It also paved a roadmap for future colonized people to ask for freedom. It’s not like because Britain outlawed slavery that they acted magnanimously afterwards.
The same founding fathers that owned slaves and codified it into law in various ways understood the need to leave open a path for abolishing slavery. They were horrible people in many ways, but so will we probably be judged as such by future generations. I don’t think it implicates the state that they ended up building and the form of government they showed was possible to last.
