Titus wrote on November 06, 2009 02:14 PM: Scott, moral courage when one is in the minority, or even totally alone, is perhaps the rarest human trait on the planet. It's probably one of the most impressive Biblical lessons -- and that's coming from an atheist.

Scott Bieser wrote on November 05, 2009 03:55 PM: Unquestionably, some things are worth fighting for. But what things?

And isn't it important that, if we're fighting for something, like say, liberty, that we don't abridge or destroy it in the process?

Fighting Nazis and Japanese imperialism is a good thing, in and of itself, and no one can deny the great personal courage of Mitchell Paige and many thousands of other warriors, but what if we only end up with a different sort of tyranny in its place?

We stopped the Nazis, and condemned Eastern Europe to 50 years of Russian-Soviet tyranny. We stopped the Japanese, and set the stage for Mao Zedong's tyranny, and two more wars which cost the lives of many thousands more brave Americans.

Certainly, it takes great courage to face off against a foreign army, fighting over a third party's turf. But I submit it takes even more courage, especially moral courage, to face off against one's own government, and even one's own community, when you know you're right and they're wrong.

Jim Mundell wrote on November 05, 2009 06:18 AM: To Mr. Vin Suprynowicz
As a Viet Nam Vetern and former Marine I want to compliment you on your column Some Things are Worth Fighting For. Semper Fi.
Jim Mundell
Little Chute, Wi.

Titus wrote on November 04, 2009 08:03 AM: The South was only a just society as long as they were paying taxes to Washington DC. Got it.

John F wrote on November 03, 2009 09:03 PM: It's about the rule of law, Titus. Show me anywhere in the constitution where it says states - or anyone - may unilaterally decide not to abide by the results of elections in which they freely take part.

I haven't invented anything. I answered each and every one of your so-called arguments and the best you can do is say "you're still wrong." Wow. I'm overwhelmed.

You maintained that the South was a just society and used Rawls to try and support that position. That's absurd. Rawls would support no such thing. Your position betrays a total lack of understanding of his work. If I were grading your paper I'd give it a D, at best.

Again, would anyone operating under the veil of ignorance ever create the antebellum Southern society and say it was moral? You didn't answer that question; I wonder why not?

And now you want to maintain that the South had the right to unilaterally overturn the results of a free election to sustain that immoral society?

Get a clue.

Titus wrote on November 03, 2009 07:51 PM: Exiting is always an option, John F, look at history. You keep inventing these ad hoc criteria for leaving the union and then demanding that others prove they were fulfilled. Then you proceed to thrash straw men and offer red herrings. A body of people does not need to prove to John F that it has grounds to sever its ties with other bodies. But, by all means, proceed to repeat yourself ad nauseum.

John F wrote on November 03, 2009 05:00 PM: You amend contracts if exiting it is not an option, and the South had no right to exit the contract.

It was moral for the colonies to break away from England for the reasons Jefferson outlined in the Declaration of Independence. The British government had violated the social contract that existed between the government and the governed. No such violation of the contract existed in the antebellum United States. The constituion had not been violated, nor had any other social contract.

The same goes for your assertion that, "It is when people feel they are not being represented and being bullied by the tyranny of the majority that they feel compelled to go their own way." No such bullying or tyranny existed when the Southern states chose to secede. They abrogated the contract that is the constitution because they were afraid that the federal government would act to stop the spread of slavery.

That's key: the federal government - in the person of the new president - did not claim the authority to interfere with slavery in the states where it already existed. There was no threat to any slaveholder's slaves. There was no tyranny. Nobody's rights were being denied (unless you count the rights of those being enslaved).

There was no tyranny. There was no abrogation of the social contract.

It's funny that Titus feels it's appropriate to argue in favor of the South as being a moral society when it was their desire to maintain and expand a perfectly immoral institution that led them to secede in the first place.

I ask you, Titus, if you were to don Rawls' veil of ignorance would you create the antebellum Southern society knowing full well that you might end up a slave? Would you consider it moral?

Titus wrote on November 03, 2009 08:07 AM: John F writes, "If people don't want to be bound by the constitution they are at liberty to amend it." This is a contradictory statement -- you don't amend a contract if you mean to exit it.

Also he goes on to say, "To say that no generation past the founders was ever meant to be bound by the constitution is patently absurd." This is mere assertion. Go read Spooner's No Treason IV. He clearly proves that social contracts exist to serve men -- not the other way around. If it was moral for the colonies to break away from England, then it would certainly be moral for a state/people to break away from the American union.

Finally he concludes that, "If every state had the right to withdraw from the agreement that is the constitution we would have anarchy." This is also baseless assertion. We North Americans are not "anarchic" but rather self-governing. It is when people feel they are not being represented and being bullied by the tyranny of the majority that they feel compelled to go their own way. Shockingly, the point is not determined by John F's whims, but by the people so governed. I suggest he reads up on John Rawls with regards to what constitutes a moral society and "get back to us" when he's so educated.

John F wrote on November 03, 2009 07:06 AM: Billy, Billy, Billy,

It's "resorts," not "results." You might want to consider beefing up on your English language skills before asking people to rely on the quality of your intellect.

For a little perspective, try reading "Road to Disunion" volumes one and two, by William Freehling. Then start in on Shelby Foote's history of the Civil War. Get back to us when you've read up a bit.

Let's go back to Paolo's argument.. He, at least, has some intellectual integrity.

"...several states made to to include, in their documents of accession to the Union, that they maintained the right of secession, if they deemed the general government had become tyrannical."

First of all, these statements are somewhat akin to President Bush's famous signing statements that said it doesn't matter what the law actually says, here's what I say it says. It doesn't work that way.

There's a more important point here, though. Even if we stipulate (and for the record, I do not) that a state has the right to secede from the union simply by determining that the federal government has become "tyrannical," by what measure had the federal government become tyrannical in February of 1861, by which time seven states had already seceded?

Had Congress passed any laws that were in violation of the constitution and unfairly targeted the Southern states? Had they moved to end slavery? No. The only thing that had happened was that Abraham Lincoln was elected president, and Lincoln claimed no authority to interfere with slavery where it already existed. He only proposed to stop its spread.

How is that tyrannical?

The South delivered the ultimatum: either allow the spread of slavery into new territories or we will unilaterally overthrow the election results of 1860 (elections we took part in freely), through force of arms, if necessary.

Bill Smith wrote on November 03, 2009 04:19 AM: Even when shown an abundance of proof, John F still results to propaganda from government school textbooks. Pathetic.

Read All Comments