Article by Article comparison of the USA and CSA constitutions [Archive]

lars573

07-10-2006, 23:55

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

I found this very interesting. As the titles says it's a comparison of the US constitution as it existed in 1861 vs. the CSA constitution. The author does have an agenda though. Namely to prove that the CSA was created (and the ACW fought) to protect the right of white men to own black men, and not to give the states more rights. He does make a fairly convincing case. As no less than 4 CSA constitutional clauses enshirne the right of citizens of the CSA to own black men as slaves. In addition the CSA takes away 3 rights of the states, for gain of 4 minor rights.

The CSA takes away the states rights to;
-grant voting rights to non-citizens
-the right to outlaw slavery in their own borders
-to trade freely with each other

They gain the right to;
-enter into treaties with each to regulate waterways
-tax foregin and domestic ship that use said waterways
-impeach federally apointed officials
-the power to distribute bills of credit

But the more intersting parts about the CSA contitution
-The president can only serve one 6 year term, the VP can be re-elected many times though
-The president has "line item veto" power
-a bill with the force of law can't have endless riders attached to it
-Cabinet Secretaries can be summoned to answer members questions
-I don't know how to interperet this so I'm gonna quote it.

The CSA adds an additional check to prevent the President from exploiting recess appointments. If someone is rejected by the Senate, the President cannot weasel around it by just making that person a recess appointment. Bad news, John Bolton.

Anway as I said interesting. Read and comment.

Reenk Roink

07-11-2006, 13:47

The Confederate Constitution was simply based on the Union Constitution except to allow for slaves and give a bit more power to the states. It wasn't going to be as weak as the Articles of Confederation, but still, not as strong as the USA Constitution.

The author makes a cogent argument however, at least that the framers of the CSA Constitution were much more worried about the issue of slavery rather than states' rights.

What surprised me the most is the fact that there is no mention of the doctrine of nullification, which was a key concept when talking about states' rights in the time period.

Strike For The South

07-15-2006, 00:55

4.8% of Southern whites owned slaves. Slave owning was also not just for whites http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm What many people are taught in school about the CSA is wrong. I also find it luaghable that somehow the American south gets all this shit for slavery like we invented and the notherners loved the blacks. Many whites (on both sides) thought the blacks would be better of in Afirica. The union soldries were willing to fight for "uncle sam not uncle sambo" The CSA was the last true act of patriotism in this country.

itchrelief

07-22-2006, 23:29

The CSA was the last true act of patriotism in this country.

To me it speaks more about the power of demagoguery and misplaced nationalism than anything else.

The average Southern did not own slaves, and was probably economically competing indirectly against slaves.

Really, if it wasn't for the slavery issue, what couldn't have been resolved without the whole ordeal of secession and war?

Let us assume that Lincoln got his way and allowed slavery in perpetuity, BUT ONLY IN THOSE STATES WHICH ALREADY HAD THE INSTITUTION, and let's just throw in that he ALSO agreed to give the South the additional rights that the CSA constitution granted (notwithstanding how I think giving a party to a disagreement the power to impeach the judge/arbitrator of their case is an extremely stupid idea and just asking for deadlock). I say this would still have caused war.

Honestly, take away slavery. Then the conflict would be about relative power of the South vs. the North within the Union (which it kind of is, but slavery is integral to Southern power, which the South dearly wished to preserve and even promulgate). Is it then justified to fight a war (or even merely to secede) to preserve relative Southern (slaveholding) power in the United States of America? (Let me clarify that this is different from the issue of guaranteeing individual small states' a modicum of power as relates to the two senators per state idea. This issue concerns relative power of a GROUP of states acting as bloc.) I say no.

To me, Southern apologists are tiring as in they go too far and try to completely trivialize the issue of slavery and paint the South as some saintly, innocent victim.

Both sides were bigoted, folks. One side had it in their interest to support SLAVERY (not necessarily to oppress blacks, mind you) and the other had it in theirs to try to abolish or at least limit SLAVERY (not necessarily to support black rights).

They fought a war, with MANY causes, but the PRINCIPAL ROOT cause is basically SLAVERY (NOT BLACKS, NOT MORALITY, AND NOT GRANDMA'S APPLE PIE). But you cannot just IGNORE SLAVERY.

/end soapbox

Divinus Arma

07-23-2006, 00:52

Great article Strike. Thanks for posting that.

I concur that the CSA have been too often villified and balmed for Slavery. They are the American scapegoat that allows the rest of American history to come out as "clean".

The history books make mention of the founding fathers' ownership of slavery but does nothing to villify them. By making the CSA the scapegoat, government historians ar able to blame it on the "last holdouts" who only fought for slavery. Thus making criminals of the south forever.

The truth is that the South was as American as could be, so much so that they were willing to fight and die to see the conservative interpretation of federal power remain. The common man fought for the rights of states. The common man died fighting a powerful federal government that had overstepped its bounds. They were patriots.

But history is written by the winners. Imagine if they had succeeded? Slavery would eventually be abolished, and the CSA would have shown the example for states rights. I assume that a reunification would have occurred in due time, and the UNited States would not be the huge one-state nation that it is today. We no longer have states. We have administrative regions.

The concept of sovereign statehood begun its death with the end of the CSA. It continued that decline with the commerce clause.

AntiochusIII

07-23-2006, 02:28

Away with the South-loving! Slavery was slavery and it was a shameful crime no matter how "patriotic" the slavers are, thank you!

The CSA was as blatantly self-interested as any political entities are. Its claims to state's rights is only as far as it serves their purpose; and since when does "state's rights" is a more significant issue than slavery? This obsession, while historically backgrounds could be established, logically is outrageously...foolish. Why does it matter if Maryland's your sovereign state as opposed to the USA? If you argue smaller size than how the hell do you justify Maryland having more authority than the local county?

The entire country in 1860 was bigoted, the majority distrust, heck, hate, the blacks, that is to be no doubt. The abolitionists were a vocal, "extremist" minority hated by Northern businessmen and the entire South alike. Only the Fugitive Slave Law of the 1850s compromise cause anything along the lines of a widespread Northern support for the Abolitionist cause.

There was a quote which represents the issue starkly, and it dates, methinks, quite a long time after the fuss of the Civil War was over. It goes along the lines of, "The South doesn't care how close you are as long as you're not free; the North doesn't care how free you are as long as you're not close." Both are bigoted, so?

Does that excuse the fact that the Civil War was indeed fought with an important reason as a futile attempt to preserve "Southern culture," of which slavery was a cornerstone? No. Does that change the fact that saying that seceding from the United States of America over a loss in elections can be called a patriotic act in favor of the United States of America is quite an oxymoron? No. Does that considers anything about how the Northern soldiers were indeed, oh the horror, welcomed by the enslaved blacks even when they ravaged the ruins of Georgia? No.

Patriots my arse. They rebelled to protect their precious slaves--so only a small percentage owned slaves, naturally; yet many considered themselves the slaves' superiors, and fought just as much to keep that social position--and they got their arses handed to them. Their Constitution clearly outlined their goals: protect slavery and secure power for the states as opposed to the federal, or the smaller administrative functions. Social statis and power plays, not some patriotic heroism.

Not to mention this assumption that history books are dumber than us. Clearly, some of you haven't been in history classes lately; the more advanced ones successfully present the complexities of history to us well enough, thank you. We're not taught "evil Brits" and "evil rednecks," we're taught the flow of the political, social, and economic forces and the events involved. We are perfectly aware that there's much more to the Civil War than good vs evil. If the history classes for dummies fails to do justice to the complexities of it all then it's the fault of simplification, not some crazy Northern conspiracy against the "Patriotic South." The argument that slavery was to die anyway does not excuse anything.

Strike For The South

07-23-2006, 02:45

Protect there precious slaves.:dizzy2: Do you know how many union officers secded? Do you know Robert E Lee's story? Men fought out of loyatly to there states and familes not for rich plantation owners. Nearly Everyone on both sides thought they were serpoiur to the blacks it wasnt just confined to the south. The average confedrate was worried about his home and his family not the slaves.

itchrelief

07-23-2006, 04:04

Protect there precious slaves.:dizzy2: Do you know how many union officers secded? Do you know Robert E Lee's story? Men fought out of loyatly to there states and familes not for rich plantation owners. Nearly Everyone on both sides thought they were serpoiur to the blacks it wasnt just confined to the south. The average confedrate was worried about his home and his family not the slaves.

Individual soldiers can fight for whatever they want, be it honor, duty, country, or a paycheck. Heck, one guy may have fought because he liked blueberries. The reason for the war is a quite different matter.

Strike For The South

07-23-2006, 04:18

lars573

07-23-2006, 04:46

The reason for the war is a quite different matter.
Because the Southern states ruling classes were afraid that Lincon would pass a federal law prohibiting (or at the very least severly limiting) slave ownership. And that the supreme court would uphold it.

The whole reason the CSA was able to get anything rolling was becuase the average southener thought his rights were being taken away. Slavery was very important to a very very small amount. Granted a powerful faction. If slavery was the most important factor many southern genrals (Stonewall Lee Stuart) would have never have joined the CSA.
And the only reason they though that was because their leaders had told them too. Some times I wonder how democracy took root in the west given the bone ignorance and gullability of the electorates in the 19th century. :no:

Hmm Lee's story I do know. He was against slavery and sucession, but couldn't bring himself to fight against Virginia. In other words a hypocritical traitor.

Strike For The South

07-23-2006, 05:00

Lee was every American should be someone who holds his loylaties to his state first and the feds 2nd.

itchrelief

07-23-2006, 05:24

The whole reason the CSA was able to get anything rolling was becuase the average southener thought his rights were being taken away. Slavery was very important to a very very small amount. Granted a powerful faction. If slavery was the most important factor many southern genrals (Stonewall Lee Stuart) would have never have joined the CSA.

Union officers that seceded did so because they felt more fealty to the South than to the Union, simple as that. That does not change the fact that many of the reasons for the war link in so many ways to slavery.

Let me state again: an individual soldier serves for his own reasons; the reasons and cause of the war do not necessarily coincide with the soldier's reasons for serving.

Given an environment that stresses duty, loyalty, honor, et al, above all, many people will fight for whichever entity they pledge their fealty to regardless of whether they completely agree with why that entity fights. The reason that individual fights is out of duty and loyalty to his state, lord, nation, local pizza parlor, etc.

In this case, Southern generals who may have personally disliked slavery were willing to LOOK PAST the fact that the CSA was a slave owning entity, out of loyalty to State and region. This does not change the fact that the CSA seceded because one of the vital tenets of its economy, power, and identity, slavery, was being threatened.

I bet many of the soldiers Clinton sent to Somalia did not personally agree with using the U.S. military for humanitarian aid distribution nor with nation building, yet they went anyhow because it was their duty. That does not change the fact that Clinton sent them there to distribute aid packets and later changed the goal to try to set up a new functioning Somali government. Furthermore, it most certainly does NOT mean that Somalis were somehow abridging the rights of those U.S. soldiers.

Anyhow, exactly what rights was the average Southerner losing? What he thinks and reality are two different animals. Heck, other than slavery, what were the rights and interests of the Southern STATES that were being threatened?

In fact, I would argue the average Southerner got duped into fighting a war which didn't really benefit him, even if the CSA did win. But when nationalism/sectarianism and Victorian notions of duty and honor are at such a preciously combustible level, them's the breaks.

itchrelief

07-23-2006, 05:25

Lee was every American should be someone who holds his loylaties to his state first and the feds 2nd.

Or in other words someone who squelched his conscience out of notions of duty.

I pity Lee for the choice he had to make. I do not dislike the man and would not wish his predicament on anyone, except maybe my worst enemy. I only say the above because of the hyperbole in the quoted post.

AntiochusIII

07-23-2006, 06:32

Protect there precious slaves.:dizzy2: Do you know how many union officers secded? Do you know Robert E Lee's story? Men fought out of loyatly to there states and familes not for rich plantation owners.And betrayed their country. Nice. And you people call that patriotism. :dizzy2: Misnomer, anyone?

Nearly Everyone on both sides thought they were serpoiur to the blacks it wasnt just confined to the south.I thought I made that point very clear. The real difference is that the North has an abolitionist movement going and overall, a softer, if still terrible, sentiment on the black people overall. At least that allowed for actual further increase in the rights of the black population as opposed to enslaving them "forever," the theoretical result of the CSA's victory, as outlined in their very Constitution, presented in the first post.

The average confedrate was worried about his home and his family not the slaves.They do worry about the slaves. Where do you think the Ku Klux Klan came from? The few landowners only? No, it's the population of the South--landowners and commoners. Not to mention the general sentiment of the poor white "free" Southern population (its majority, that is) was something along the lines of, "no matter how pathetic our lives are, we still are superior to the slaves."

That and the fact that what they personally fight for meant squat when they were fighting for the CSA anyway. What do you think an average soldier in any war fight for? To live another day! To survive!

The whole reason the CSA was able to get anything rolling was becuase the average southener thought his rights were being taken away.There's something call propaganda; and there's something call demagoguery; there's something call rabblerousing; and there's also something call mob mentality...

To be fair, both sides were perfectly inclined to throw their children to death with parades and great fanfare until the realities of war set in.

Lee was every American should be someone who holds his loylaties to his state first and the feds 2nd.To repeat this ad infinitum (no one has ever answered me on this, really, and it's a major point; I'm feeling ignored): why Virginia? Why not the USA? Because it's smaller? And if smaller is your righteous justification? Why not the counties? Many Floridan, Texan, and many other counties did vote for the Union, and only the counties in West Virginia ever got seperated for free! Hypocrisy, no? And if the counties still; why not smaller, your local town, your household, yourself?

Why state?

Oh, that and the issue that to my limited knowledge it seems Lee was an officer of the United States army and not some Virginian militia that he had the right to choose between the two, but I don't know enough to be sure on that.

Edit: Forgot to add: the CSA Constitution, apart from being such a blatantly obvious document for slave-owners, does not really support the "state's rights" cause at all. They do have a few good ideas, though, ones that arguably could've been included into the USA Constitution anyway given a chance for additions and revisions.

Divinus Arma

07-23-2006, 23:07

AntiochusIII

07-24-2006, 00:07

Strike For The South

07-24-2006, 00:18

Oh, and my major point has again been ignored. :no: Please address it too: what makes the state more important than the country?

The USA is a union of states that decide to work together not states that are binded by one.

AntiochusIII

07-24-2006, 00:25

The USA is a union of states that decide to work together not states that are binded by one.And that is based on?

Strike For The South

07-24-2006, 00:40

The constitution the DOI so one powerful fedral goverment cant screw the little guy. States rights should be imbeded in every child.

rotorgun

07-24-2006, 03:20

The constitution the DOI so one powerful fedral goverment cant screw the little guy. States rights should be imbeded in every child.
Agreed Strike, as long as those states' rights don't interfere with the rights of the its citizens, or go against the very fabric of the country's ideals and values. The phrase in the Declaration of independence "...that all men are ceated equal and ordained with certain inalienable rights by their creator." are no mere words to be forgotten when inconvenient. This is what the South of the 1860's was doing when claiming that their reason for war was "States Rights".
The main "rights" they wanted to protect were those which denied freedom to blacks within their states, and to continue the institution of slavery. As President Lincoln stated "I believe that this nation can no longer endure half slave and half free..."

There is often a vast difference between the "reasons" that a nation choses war, and the act of secsession was an act of war in everything but name, and the "causes" of a war. While the south claimed the reason was to protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government, and the north claimed they were preserving the Union, in fact both sides were trying to protect their vital economic interests. The south feared the loss of its slave labor, the hinge-pin of southern wealth, while the north was upset over the loss of profits because the southerners refused to by the north's inferior steel farm implements and machines. Better quality implements could be obtained by trading cotton for them with Britain. Thus, the tariff act placed on all imports by the largely northern dominated congress. This was one of the acts that pushed the south closer toward war before even Lincoln was elected. The north was also reliant on the south for food to feed its larger population as growing seasons were obviusly shorter in the north. In a sense, both sides felt threatned by the others actions.

Respectfully,

rotorgun

07-24-2006, 03:30

The constitution the DOI so one powerful fedral goverment cant screw the little guy. States rights should be imbeded in every child.
Agreed Strike, as long as those states' rights don't interfere with the rights of the its citizens, or go against the very fabric of the country's ideals and values. The phrase in the Declaration of independence "...that all men are ceated equal and ordained with certain inalienable rights by their creator." are no mere words to be forgotten when inconvenient. This is what the South of the 1860's was doing when claiming that their reason for war was "States Rights".
The main "rights" they wanted to protect were those which denied freedom to blacks within their states, and to continue the institution of slavery. As President Lincoln stated "I believe that this nation can no longer endure half slave and half free..."

There is often a vast difference between the "reasons" that a nation choses war, and the act of secsession was an act of war in everything but name, and the "causes" of a war. While the south claimed the reason was to protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government, and the north claimed they were preserving the Union, in fact both sides were trying to protect their vital economic interests. The south feared the loss of its slave labor, the hinge-pin of southern wealth, while the north was upset over the loss of profits because the southerners refused to buy the north's inferior steel farm implements and machines. Better quality implements could be obtained by trading cotton for them with Britain. Thus, the tariff act placed on all imports by the largely northern dominated congress. This was one of the acts that pushed the south closer toward war before even Lincoln was elected. The north was also reliant on the south for food to feed its larger population as growing seasons were obviusly shorter in the north. Secsession threatened a loss of access to these commodities. In a sense, both sides felt threatned by the others actions.

Respectfully,

rotorgun

07-24-2006, 03:37

The constitution the DOI so one powerful fedral goverment cant screw the little guy. States rights should be imbeded in every child.
Agreed Strike, as long as those states' rights don't interfere with the rights of the its citizens, or go against the very fabric of the country's ideals and values. The phrase in the Declaration of independence "...that all men are ceated equal and ordained with certain inalienable rights by their creator." are no mere words to be forgotten when inconvenient. This is what the South of the 1860's was doing when claiming that their reason for war was "States Rights".

The main "rights" they wanted to protect were those which denied freedom to blacks within their states, and to continue the institution of slavery. As President Lincoln stated "I believe that this nation can no longer endure half slave and half free..."

There is often a vast difference between the "reasons" that a nation choses war, and the act of secsession was an act of war in everything but name, and the "causes" of a war. While the south claimed the reason was to protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government, and the north claimed they were preserving the Union, in fact both sides were trying to protect their vital economic interests.

The south feared the loss of its slave labor, the hinge-pin of southern wealth, while the north was upset over the loss of profits because the southerners refused to buy the north's inferior steel farm implements and machines. Better quality implements could be obtained by trading cotton for them with Britain. Thus, the tariff act placed on all imports by the largely northern dominated congress. This was one of the acts that pushed the south closer toward war before even Lincoln was elected. The north was also reliant on the south for food to feed its larger population as growing seasons were obviusly shorter in the north. Secsession threatened a loss of access to these commodities. In a sense, both sides felt threatned by the others actions.

Respectfully,

rotorgun

07-24-2006, 03:41

:oops:
Triple post! Sorry everyone. Administrator plaese remove the first two. Post #22 is my final editted post. Thanks

AntiochusIII

07-24-2006, 03:56

Actually, the North did not need the South's foodstuffs. The Great Plains and even the Northern regions themselves are far greater producers of grain and other vital food resources. They need the South for cotton; cotton was the United States' single most important export asset for a very, very long time, and the South provided the absolute majority of them. That, of course, is just nitpicking.

The constitution the DOI so one powerful fedral goverment cant screw the little guy. States rights should be imbeded in every child.Why? And where exactly in the Constitution are you pointing at?

And why must the State be more important than the nation, but has the right to impose its decision upon a smaller administrative region, the county (and if you want, go further) at the same time? Isn't that pure hypocrisy? Why couldn't those Floridan, Texan, and many other counties that voted for the Union forced to fight the Union for the CSA?

lars573

07-24-2006, 04:17

Lee was every American should be someone who holds his loylaties to his state first and the feds 2nd.
That idea is really what caused the yankee civil war. That the parts are greater than the whole was a death sentence to the US. The fact that after less than 100 years the US nearly fell apart is proof of that. And the fact that similar decentralized unions have all failed is also proof of that. No your loyalty is to your nation first, the particular sub unit in that nation second. A distant second.

To repeat this ad infinitum (no one has ever answered me on this, really, and it's a major point; I'm feeling ignored): why Virginia? Why not the USA? Because it's smaller? And if smaller is your righteous justification? Why not the counties? Many Floridan, Texan, and many other counties did vote for the Union, and only the counties in West Virginia ever got seperated for free! Hypocrisy, no? And if the counties still; why not smaller, your local town, your household, yourself?

Why state?

Oh, that and the issue that to my limited knowledge it seems Lee was an officer of the United States army and not some Virginian militia that he had the right to choose between the two, but I don't know enough to be sure on that.
Because appearntly in those days some people felt more of a connection to their home state. Lee considered Virginia to be sacred ground for some crazy reason. :dizzy2: And yes he was a General in the US army. Widely regarded by his superiors, subordinates, and comrades to be the single best soldier in the US army. Many historians consider his leadership and skill the reason the CSA army was able to keep going for 4 years.

Marshal Murat

07-24-2006, 04:28

The South had a very good reason to secede from the Union, because they felt their State's rights of "every man equal" were being threatened. The Northern States controlled the larger amount of the Senate, Congress, voting block, etc. They were able to impose their own fines, tariffs, and otherwise, that were not in the interest of the South. If you don't agree with something, you either take it, or you take action.
The South took action, because the view was that every state had willingly agreed to a Union of states, which guaranteed a equal right for North and Southerner. The South didn't have the representation that it wanted, and they felt that this voluntary Union wasn't in their best interest, so they split off. The Lincoln controlled sought to impose a strong federal government, which wasn't in the South's best interest.

Now to the allegiance to state.
I love Virginia, my heart and soul, my brothers and sisters. The Floridians, the Texans, the whoever that didn't vote South, felt allegiance to their state, before their government. The West Virginians were more aligned to split, because they felt disconnected from the Richmond government, and were more South Ohio, than Virginian. Also, the Floridian areas that you talk about were predominately taken over by Union troops after the beginning of the war.

Lord Winter

07-24-2006, 05:58

And betrayed their country. Nice. And you people call that patriotism. Misnomer, anyone?
Did the founders betray Briton. If they didn't could you state who these cases are different.

As President Lincoln stated "I believe that this nation can no longer endure half slave and half free..."

He also stated: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that..."
The fear of the abolition of slavery was just the straw that broke the donkeys back. Tariffs and the admittance of northern states upsetting what the south felt as a fair balance of power was a major cause to. People should not be so quick to brand the south as a nation that left solely to hold one man in slavery. This war was not a war over slavery but a war over what was fair representation.

Papewaio

07-24-2006, 06:36

Patriotism is not the willingness to fight for government, laws, or territory.

Patriotism is the respect and sacrifice for the values that the nation is founded on. The federal government overstepped its boundaries and seperated itself from its values.

The CSA didn't abandon the federal government. The CSA was abandoned by the federal government.

Lee & Co. were patriots. They were Americans. And they were betrayed by their government. They stood for the founding principles of the constitution. When a government no longer represents its people, it is the right and duty of the people to overthrow their government.

Maybe Lee & Co should have read the declaration of Independence if they were really fighting for what the country was founded on:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Slavery is certainly not equality. When the rich search to upsurp the rule of law and justice and then manipulate others to do their bidding it is not a matter of State vs Federal rights its a matter of right vs wrong. A man who puts state rights above human rights should have been stripped of all honours, hanged like a dog and buried in lime for all time.

Lee & Co stepped away from the line of thinking that created the Declaration and did not have the strength of courage and foresight to follow it through. Cowardice in the name of state rights and the idea that loyalty to state is above human rights is not something to admire. The SS where loyal too.

Marshal Murat

07-24-2006, 12:47

The SS were loyal to a nation which was "perfect"
Lee and Co. were standing by their homeland, a land more perfect than the federal government. They had their doubts, and generally disliked, the institution of slavery, and fought for the state's right to withdraw from the Union whenever they chose to do so.

Papewaio

07-25-2006, 02:28

So they put state rights above human rights. Loyalty and Duty are only as good as the Code one follows. If the code is wrong then that loyalty and duty is misplaced.

Code is the map, get the wrong map and it doesn't matter how hard or fast you march you still end up at the wrong place.

Marshal Murat

07-25-2006, 02:56

But getting to the wrong place can always be an advantage! :laugh4:

Loyalty and Duty are still virtues, and to follow them to the end is a very honorable thing to do. Even more so when you know what you are fighting for is morally wrong. Lee hoped to change the Confederacy after the war, and make slavery a non-existent entity. He valued his homeland above the Federals from the north, those who didn't understand the southern view. They fought for a homeland, the Union fought for unification. Every man in history has fought for his home, despite any misgivings he had about their policy.

Did the Indians fight in the Sepoy Mutiny because they enjoyed killing whites? No, they fought because they were protecting their homeland from the oppresive British. Did they ever stop because they were holding hundreds of British in oppresive jails across India?

In North America, when Iroqouis killed colonist, and colonist killed Iroqouis, they fought for their home, and didn't stop fighting because they were commiting human attrocities. Scalping, rapes, pillaging, yet these frontiersmen are revered as the trail-blazer's of America!

Do you think that the Israeli's are going to halt attacks into Lebanon because of the civilian casualties that are caused by their air-strikes? Unlikely if it were left to them.

The defense of a homeland is a code that is blind to all faults within, for it has only two needs, Loyalty and Duty.

Papewaio

07-25-2006, 03:03

As a citizen of the world I think blind adherence to duty and loyalty above humanity is the refugee of the craven. It is a shallow excuse and was exposed as such at the Nuremburg trials, a war crime is never exonerated because it was an order.

The ends do not justify the means either. In the end of the day duty and loyalty are just a set of bongos those in charge will beat to rally others to fight for their cause. Just because a person chooses to march to that beat does not make his destination anymore virtous. It is both the method and the destination that are important.

Reenk Roink

07-25-2006, 03:32

Maybe Lee & Co should have read the declaration of Independence if they were really fighting for what the country was founded on:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Slavery is certainly not equality. When the rich search to upsurp the rule of law and justice and then manipulate others to do their bidding it is not a matter of State vs Federal rights its a matter of right vs wrong. A man who puts state rights above human rights should have been stripped of all honours, hanged like a dog and buried in lime for all time.

I'm afraid you are not interpreting the Constitution in its proper historical context here. The framers and founding fathers (a majority of them) saw no contradiction between this passage (which would have been naturally limited to white men) and allowing slavery. Compare this to the fact that the framers and founding fathers saw no contradiction between freedom of speech and blasphemy laws.

Interpreting the Constitution in it's proper historical context becomes very important. For example, I agree with a historical interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to freedom of speech, I simply cannot accept complete free speech. Also, I agree with the historical interpretation of the Second Amendment. People do not have a right to bear arms except to revolt in the case of an oppressive government (as you can see, the historical context of the Second Amendment renders it void in today's context)...

However, I agree with you on the point that slavery is not equality and furthermore, the slavery practiced was (mostly because Strike for the South will call me out) unequal in regards with race... I do not agree with a historical interpretation in this case.

Papewaio

07-25-2006, 05:39

I agree that in its historical context it wasn't seen as a conflict that equality and slavery existed. Nor do I now, as long as all can own slaves and all could be slaves if indentured as an adult. That would be equal. However equally stupid is not something to aspire to, so wisdom should be applied. That and economies tend to be more powerful per capita the more equal access the citizens have.

Important part of my post:

Lee & Co stepped away from the line of thinking that created the Declaration and did not have the strength of courage and foresight to follow it through.

My point is that the Declaration is a starting point, of why to do things, a Vision statement, and that it is for following generations to follow through on it and flesh it out. The Consitution, being the guidelines of how to do it or Mission statement. But to make it flesh and to live up to its promises it has to be lived and adapt to our modern understanding.

Lee & Co. choose a path that did not take it higher, they choose a path that was not in alignment with the seed nor what the declaration could ultimately grow into. Thankfully the Confederacy failed.

Thankfully other nations also gave women the vote and the US followed.

The good thing about a good starting compass is the path that it can set us upon. The writers may have not known were ulitmately it would lead, but if the premise is good so should be the outcome.

Banquo's Ghost

07-25-2006, 09:13

Loyalty and Duty are still virtues, and to follow them to the end is a very honorable thing to do. Even more so when you know what you are fighting for is morally wrong. Lee hoped to change the Confederacy after the war, and make slavery a non-existent entity. He valued his homeland above the Federals from the north, those who didn't understand the southern view. They fought for a homeland, the Union fought for unification.

I beg to differ. Loyalty and Duty, without Moral Judgement are hollow and lead to hell. It is the kind of nonsense that created the very worst of war crimes. The moreso when combined with a misplaced patriotism based on an arbritary line on a map.

If General Lee truly hoped to change the Confederacy after the war, then he was naive as well as a traitor. History is littered with such fools, and their names are invariably on the same roll as the butchers and evil-doers - but usually, if their party has won, as a mere footnote in history having failed to accomplish any change and having been gently sidelined or not-so-gently done away with.

Every man in history has fought for his home, despite any misgivings he had about their policy. :inquisitive:

I begin to see where your quixotic views come from if you think that is the case. History is full of men fighting for much, much baser reasons, and they outnumber the noble patriots by several orders of magnitude.

How, for example, do you explain the Gurkhas, Nepalese mercenaries who have fought for the British Crown for many years, are regularised into regiments, and are some of the finest and most honourable warriors of my acquaintance? They certainly don't fight for their home.

Marshal Murat

07-25-2006, 12:22

The key word is 'mercenaries'. To be paid to fight is different from the fight for home and hearth.

Lee could have changed the Confederacy because he was the saviour of the Confederacy. He had a strong voter block (war-veterans and the populace), and the slave-holding aristocracy was small. If he wanted to, he could have killed all the plantation owners, and freed the slaves.

Are the Spartans ever critizied for their Loyalty to Sparta, and devotion to Duty? They had helots, and not like the south, but nearly twice their population. Yet they are still admired for their last ditch defenses of thier forces!

Banquo's Ghost

07-25-2006, 13:11

The key word is 'mercenaries'. To be paid to fight is different from the fight for home and hearth.

But that's not what you wrote initially (my emphasis):

Every man in history has fought for his home, despite any misgivings he had about their policy.

And I think you would have found very, very few armies larger than three men and a leprous goat if the soldiers therein didn't get paid to fight. Especially those lovely imperial armies that fought to deprive someone else of their home in the name of greater patriotism - or whatever.

Lee could have changed the Confederacy because he was the saviour of the Confederacy. He had a strong voter block (war-veterans and the populace), and the slave-holding aristocracy was small. If he wanted to, he could have killed all the plantation owners, and freed the slaves.

You're kidding me, right? General Lee could have gone around butchering the land-owners? :inquisitive:

Are the Spartans ever critizied for their Loyalty to Sparta, and devotion to Duty? They had helots, and not like the south, but nearly twice their population. Yet they are still admired for their last ditch defenses of thier forces!

Actually, yes, they are often criticised. The Athenians started with the criticism and it has hardly let up since. The Spartans were amongst the nastiest military autocracies in history, right up there with other war criminals. Admiring them for their occasional bravery (as brainwashed into them as dying stupidly for 'The Emperor' was to the soldiery of Japan in the last century) does not endorse their evil - considered so even in their own time.

I note again that loyalty and duty without moral judgment creates an inhuman soldier. The defence that 'I was only following orders' has long been disallowed, and rightly so.