Christian Forums

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 01:34:47

Quote from: Huscarl on Sun Mar 21, 2010 - 18:19:00
Legality and morality rarely have anything in common.

That's only true if you're a lawyer, or think like one. 

I actually hate lawyers, but there's a reason lawyers think this way, they have to in order to do their jobs effectively and to uphold the law consistently.

Inserting moral reasoning into legal arguments is pointless because it is impossible to enforce the law both consistently and morally.  And in the realm of the law consistency is much more important.  You can argue about morality all you want and no one will agree on anything, you can argue the letter of the law and actually achieve something.

This legal argument of yours is a slippery creature to corner up.
Bear with me; I am doing my best to pick which shell your legal argument is under.

You said the South did not have the right to leave because it wasn't legal.
By your reasoning then the slaves had no rights to leave slavery (it was legal.)
This is a legal argument.

I say that the South had the right to leave the union.
I say that the slaves had the right to fight for their freedom.
This is a moral argument.

Law is supposed to be the servant of what is right and wrong.
When morality is the servant of law, you have perversion.
Law and morality should be in agreement as often as possible.

Solomon was a great man. Lincoln was not.
Solomon found a way to settle a dispute wisely and peacefully.
Lincoln sawed the baby in half.

If Lincoln had ended slavery or saved the union peacefully, he would be great.
He, however, did neither.

Legal argument:
The South fired the first shot. You added that nothing else matters.

Moral argument:
Lincoln sought to "preserve

Quote from: Huscarl on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 14:15:31

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 01:34:47

Quote from: Huscarl on Sun Mar 21, 2010 - 18:19:00
Legality and morality rarely have anything in common.

That's only true if you're a lawyer, or think like one. 

I actually hate lawyers, but there's a reason lawyers think this way, they have to in order to do their jobs effectively and to uphold the law consistently.

Inserting moral reasoning into legal arguments is pointless because it is impossible to enforce the law both consistently and morally.  And in the realm of the law consistency is much more important.  You can argue about morality all you want and no one will agree on anything, you can argue the letter of the law and actually achieve something.

A law that does not correspond to morality is worse than no law at all.  It's a stick to beat people with.

Quote from: Vidette on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 18:41:37
This legal argument of yours is a slippery creature to corner up.
Bear with me; I am doing my best to pick which shell your legal argument is under.

You said the South did not have the right to leave because it wasn't legal.
By your reasoning then the slaves had no rights to leave slavery (it was legal.)
This is a legal argument.

I say that the South had the right to leave the union.
I say that the slaves had the right to fight for their freedom.
This is a moral argument.

Law is supposed to be the servant of what is right and wrong.
When morality is the servant of law, you have perversion.
Law and morality should be in agreement as often as possible.

Solomon was a great man. Lincoln was not.
Solomon found a way to settle a dispute wisely and peacefully.
Lincoln sawed the baby in half.

If Lincoln had ended slavery or saved the union peacefully, he would be great.
He, however, did neither.

Legal argument:
The South fired the first shot. You added that nothing else matters.

Moral argument:
Lincoln sought to "preserve

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 18:56:22

Quote from: Huscarl on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 14:15:31

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 01:34:47

Quote from: Huscarl on Sun Mar 21, 2010 - 18:19:00
Legality and morality rarely have anything in common.

That's only true if you're a lawyer, or think like one. 

I actually hate lawyers, but there's a reason lawyers think this way, they have to in order to do their jobs effectively and to uphold the law consistently.

Inserting moral reasoning into legal arguments is pointless because it is impossible to enforce the law both consistently and morally.  And in the realm of the law consistency is much more important.  You can argue about morality all you want and no one will agree on anything, you can argue the letter of the law and actually achieve something.

A law that does not correspond to morality is worse than no law at all.  It's a stick to beat people with.

Welcome to civilization

Quote from: Huscarl on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 14:13:13
So you agree the north was justified

No, I didn't agree. You did.

Quote from: Huscarl on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 20:43:16
The idea that law and morality are one is childish, I don't care who says it. It's not the way it has ever been nor shall ever be in a civilized society because placing that kind of authority with the law is horribly dangerous. 

I take it you are against the ten commandments?

Quote:
I'm actually just a semester away from starting my teaching internship where I will be teaching history to a secondary ed. class...

You are a teacher?

You teach history and couldn't spell Sumter?

Quote from: Vidette on Fri Mar 19, 2010 - 21:56:48
I will agree that we have different views (as also do historians.)

I can agree with that

Quote from: Vidette on Fri Mar 19, 2010 - 21:56:48
It is my view that Lincoln had choices. He could have let the South go peaceably, but he chose, as you said, to "bind

Quote from: Huscarl on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 20:53:48

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 18:56:22

Quote from: Huscarl on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 14:15:31

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Mon Mar 22, 2010 - 01:34:47

Quote from: Huscarl on Sun Mar 21, 2010 - 18:19:00
Legality and morality rarely have anything in common.

That's only true if you're a lawyer, or think like one. 

I actually hate lawyers, but there's a reason lawyers think this way, they have to in order to do their jobs effectively and to uphold the law consistently.

Inserting moral reasoning into legal arguments is pointless because it is impossible to enforce the law both consistently and morally.  And in the realm of the law consistency is much more important.  You can argue about morality all you want and no one will agree on anything, you can argue the letter of the law and actually achieve something.

A law that does not correspond to morality is worse than no law at all.  It's a stick to beat people with.

Welcome to civilization

I note that you do not actually disagree.  Please relate that to the original argument.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Nov 12, 2009 - 14:52:15
Apparently, not everyone is a fan of our 16th President.

Being an American by birth, and a Southerner by the grace of God, I find some sympathy for this article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo179.html

I agree. Thanks for the post.

I've probably posted this elsewhere on the thread, but if you want a balanced look at Lincoln, both the good and the bad along with an analysis of how his views on race and slavery evolved, check out the late David Donald's biography.

Appreciate the tip. Will check it out when I get time. Busy with some other things going on and we are getting into our busy season at work. Need to take a break from the computer for awhile. I get too into it lol.

QuoteIt was not about states rights, it was about slavery.  Both the president and vice president of the CSA stated as much.  I am all about states rights, but the civil war was not fought over that.  The states seceeded because they were in the minority over the slavery issue.  Slavery was about to be outlawed in the country, so they left the country.  Something they did not have the right to do.

Individual rights are God given.  Earthly governments may do their best to remove them, but they cannot be removed.  Many throughout history have given their lives before surrendering their rights.  They lost their lives, but never lost their God given rights.  Just as countless Christians throughout history have given their lives, rather than surrender their faith.  If the United States continues to go in the direction it is headed, I will personally succeed from it.  Just as I have the right to do so, and know one can stop me, so to, can entire states when the majority within them are in agreement.  I wonder what the founding fathers would have said to someone telling them they didn't have the right to succeed from England.  Oh, wait, we already know what they said.

As a Canadian, I'm sticking my nose into U.S. politics. But please bear with me.
My question is this : How could a state logically secede that was without a maritime boundary (i.e. totally surrounded by states unwilling to secede)? Would it be geopolitically possible for West Virginia to secede if Virginia (or Maryland or Ohio) didn't secede first?

canuck

Quote from: canuck on Mon May 31, 2010 - 14:27:37
As a Canadian, I'm sticking my nose into U.S. politics. But please bear with me.
My question is this : How could a state logically secede that was without a maritime boundary (i.e. totally surrounded by states unwilling to secede)? Would it be geopolitically possible for West Virginia to secede if Virginia (or Maryland or Ohio) didn't secede first?

canuck

West Virginia could not have suceeded.  They were not a state.  Actually, they voted against sucession...hence becoming a new state.  Basically, the counties in the then state of Virginia were divided.  Those that voted to sucede became Virgina, and those that oted to remain part of the union, well, the suceeded from Virginia and were admited to the Union under the name of West Virginia.

As for the rest...geography had no impact on whether sucession was possible or not.

Bond

edit: fixed a major typo....

Quote from: BondServant on Mon May 31, 2010 - 16:55:53

Quote from: canuck on Mon May 31, 2010 - 14:27:37
As a Canadian, I'm sticking my nose into U.S. politics. But please bear with me.
My question is this : How could a state logically secede that was without a maritime boundary (i.e. totally surrounded by states unwilling to secede)? Would it be geopolitically possible for West Virginia to secede if Virginia (or Maryland or Ohio) didn't secede first?

canuck

West Virginia could not have suceeded.  They were not a state.  Actually, they voted against sucession...hence becoming a new state.  Basically, the counties in the then state of Virginia were divided.  Those that voted to sucede became Virgina, and those that oted to remain part of the union, well, the suceeded from Virginia and were admited to the Union under the name of West Virginia.

As for the rest...geology had no impact on whether sucession was possible or not.

Bond

Thanks for clarifying this.
But coming down to the present time, do individual states now retain the right to secede according to the U.S. Constitution?

canuck

No...they do not.  In the case of Texas v. White, it was established that states do not have the right to secede without the consent of the other states.

bond

Why would someone wanting to secede from a religious or political entity, care if that entity believed they had the right to do so, or not?  All despotic and abusive forms of power, deny the right of anyone to secede from them. 

Back in 1970's there was a very strong separatist movement within the Province of Quebec. The provincial legislature was ruled by the Parti Quebecois whose sole aim was to secede from Canadian federalism. The federal Parliament worked hard to keep Quebec placated -- to the extent that they began a programme of granting special concessions to Quebec; a policy that continues to this very day.

Quebec has never actually moved to secede and that because of federal appeasement. They realize they would need to raise their own armed forces, create their own currency, lose all the federal transfer payments they presently receive etc. So instead, they threaten every five to ten years to go it alone. And in response, the feds give them more. It's a game well played by a province that has been sitting on the fence for many years now.

canuck