American Revolution

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='havok579257' date='25 February 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1267130500' post='2062957']
...
also not having to house soilders, soilders who were fighting to protect american's is not a fundamental right.
[/quote]
Elaborate a little more, if you may?

[Lilllabettt]

US, I too am sorry that you're a Marxist. But you're not alone. All Marxists are sorry they're Marxists. It's an intellectual point of view that breeds cynicism and feeds on human disappointment and jadedness. A very unhappy bunch.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='26 February 2010 - 08:28 AM' timestamp='1267190884' post='2063177']
US, I too am sorry that you're a Marxist. But you're not alone. All Marxists are sorry they're Marxists. It's an intellectual point of view that breeds cynicism and feeds on human disappointment and jadedness. A very unhappy bunch.
[/quote]


It's not Marxism to believe that money is a huge motivator.

[Lilllabettt]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='26 February 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1267199907' post='2063193']
It's not Marxism to believe that money is a huge motivator.
[/quote]


No, its not Marxist to believe that money "is a huge motivator." It is Marxist to believe that Lincoln's principle motive in fighting the Civil War was serving capitalist interests ... that is the definition of Marxism, my friend.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='25 February 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1267159252' post='2063136']
I wish I was still naïve enough to believe that Lincoln was the saint that Northerners make him out to be, and that he was fighting for some greater good.
[/quote]

Interestingly, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves in the states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware (the "border states"). I say "interestingly" because those states never declared secession from the Union.

[txdinghysailor]

"Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2243)

1) This condition is satisfied
2) This is a grey area. Yes they had tried other means of redress, but they hadn't been terribly successful. Were there other avenues to seek redress? Probably, but based on previous dealings with the Crown, they weren't likely to succeed.
3) Um yeah I think they definitely provoked worse disorders...
4) There was definitely not a well-founded hope of success
5) Another grey area, like number 2.

[havok579257]

[quote name='txdinghysailor' date='26 February 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1267216047' post='2063281']
"Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2243)

1) This condition is satisfied
2) This is a grey area. Yes they had tried other means of redress, but they hadn't been terribly successful. Were there other avenues to seek redress? Probably, but based on previous dealings with the Crown, they weren't likely to succeed.
3) Um yeah I think they definitely provoked worse disorders...
4) There was definitely not a well-founded hope of success
5) Another grey area, like number 2.
[/quote]


number 2 is not a grey area. the ccc says that all means have been exhausted. it does not say the majority of means had been tried. it says all means have been exhausted. that was not the case with america at the time. yes, they had tried a bunch of things to gain freedom's from the king and failed but they had not tried everything. just because most people say everything they would have tried would have failed does not make it so. until they actually tried everything, they did not exhaust their means. its that simple. the ccc is very cut and dry on this.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='26 February 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1267221735' post='2063355']
number 2 is not a grey area. the ccc says that all means have been exhausted. it does not say the majority of means had been tried. it says all means have been exhausted. that was not the case with america at the time. yes, they had tried a bunch of things to gain freedom's from the king and failed but they had not tried everything. just because most people say everything they would have tried would have failed does not make it so. until they actually tried everything, they did not exhaust their means. its that simple. the ccc is very cut and dry on this.
[/quote]
Other *moral* means. (Self-evident.)

I'm no historian. What other means were tried and not tried?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='26 February 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1267162498' post='2063152']
Elaborate a little more, if you may?
[/quote]

citizens have a resonsiblity to care for soilders of the state which they reside in. soilder who are there for your protection. if you want soilders to be there to protect your life they you have a responsibility to care for them. be it financially or otherwise. that's part of the package. you don't just get to have soilders there to protect your life for free. its all give an take. you get your life protected by the soilders but you need to support and care for them.

also this is something that happened in WWII and people don't seem to have a problem with it in this instance. in WWII when the american's liberated a town they would usually need to take quarter in the town for a night or so before moving on and pushing the german's further back. so they would not only take quarter in these towns but would boot the people out of their houses for a night or two. they made the people have to stay somewhere else for a day or two. i see no problem with it in this instance either. the american's/allies were there to liberate your country. they were their to save and protect your life. the citizens have a duty to support and care for the soilders who just liberated and saved them. if that means giving them quarter than so be it. they wanted liberate and they got it, but one can not expect freedom without some give and take. the allies gave them their freedom and in exchanged they were in need of quarters for a night or two.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='havok579257' date='26 February 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1267222517' post='2063369']
citizens have a resonsiblity to care for soilders of the state which they reside in. soilder who are there for your protection. if you want soilders to be there to protect your life they you have a responsibility to care for them. be it financially or otherwise.[/quote]

They don't protect us, I do not want State soldiers to "be there," and I have absolutely no responsibility to support them. Financially or otherwise.

The people of America were already more than able to defend [i]themselves[/i] against the "savage indians," as they proved when they kicked their "protectors," representatives of the most [i]powerful [/i]State military in the world, out of their land. They didn't need the Lobsterbacks.

I wouldn't want some State military man from either 3 [i]or [/i]3,000 miles away sleeping in the same house as my teenage daughter, and no one has [i]any [/i]right to force me to force me to quarter him in my house. If I do not invite you in, you are an aggressor. I would treat you as such.

You say the standing army "protects us." The Founding Fathers and their contemporaries did not agree.

[size="2"]"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. [b]The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been [i]always [/i]the instruments of tyranny at home.[/b] Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. [b]Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." --James Madison[/b][/size]

[size="2"]"A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?"[/size] -Patrick Henry

[url="http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp"]http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp[/url]


[font="Verdana"][size="2"]"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is [b]to prevent the establishment of a standing army,[/b] [b]the bane of liberty.[/b]" Rep. Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

[/size][/font][font="Verdana"][size="2"]"...to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;... to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics – [/size][/font][font="Verdana"][size="2"]that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;..." –[/size][/font][font="Verdana"][size="2"]President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

[/size][/font][font="Verdana"][size="2"][b] [/b]"As [b]the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, [/b]it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." --James Madison (notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention

[/size][/font][font="Verdana"][size="2"]"[b]Congress have no power to disarm the militia.[/b] [b]Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...[/b] [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, [b]in the hands of the people.[/b]", Tenche Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[/size][/font][size="3"][font="Verdana"][size="2"]"...that standing army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens,[b] little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.[/b]" -- Alexander Hamilton(Federalist Paper #29)
[/size][/font]

[size="2"]"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. [b]War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes[/b];and armies, and debts, and [b]taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.[/b] In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of [b]seducing the minds,[/b] are added to those of subduing the force,of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ...degeneracy of manners and of morals.... [b]No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare[/b]." --James Madison[/size]


[font="Verdana"][size="2"][url="http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/ff_militia.htm"]http://www.sightm191.../ff_militia.htm[/url][/size][/font]

[size="2"]I'll stick with the Founding Fathers on this one. But who today cares what they thought? Not liberals, and [i]obviously[/i] not "conservatives." But hindsight is 20/20. The Founding Fathers were closer to the truth of the matter than almost anyone alive today. The problem was simply that they didn't think their principles through to their ultimate logical conclusions. They thought they could keep a "small, controllable State standing army." Like a "small, controllable" avalanche, there's no such thing. They [i]always[/i] start out small. But State standing armies always and ultimately destroy that which they were intended to protect.
[/size]

[size="2"] ~Sternhauser[/size]





[/size]

Edited February 27, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 February 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1267128155' post='2062930']
Marxist theory explains historical incidents, like war, as by-products of the capitalist system. For example, the idea that Lincoln fought the Civil War because he was "trying to preserve his loot" or his motives were "fiscal," is a Marxist one.[/quote]

And the idea that Judas turned over Jesus for 30 pieces of silver is a "Marxist" idea. It's Marxist because it involves money as Judas's primary motivation.

Something doesn't cease to be true because Marx believed it. And a truth doesn't become "Marxist" simply because Marx happen to believe it.



[quote]The Marxist explanation for the American Revolution is the business class becoming annoyed at taxes on their "loot."
[/quote]

And the "Marxist explanation," in that case, is a lie. Or rather, as is the case with most Marxist explanations, it is a pernicious half-truth. Taxation was hardly the issue. Being forced to house 18-year old soldiers in the same house as their daughters, on the other hand, was an issue. The idea that a man 3,000 miles away, who was born naked and squalling, just like them, and who also put on his breeches one leg at a time, held such coercive power over them, was an issue. The daily treatment the Americans received from the British was an issue. Stealing their weapons and powder, the "birthright of an American?" That just broke the camel's back.

Marxists believe that the source of all human evils is the unequal distribution of goods. It is a materialist mindset. The people of the South in the 1860's did not want other people's stuff. They were not jealous of the material goods of others. They wanted to be [i]left alone,[/i] and they wanted to [i]keep[/i] the fruits of their labor and the stuff they already had, which is the same thing the Colonists wanted, 80 years earlier.

It is absurd to ascribe the term "Marxist" to the idea that people often do unconscionable evils to satisfy their base desires, whether their desire is for money [i]or[/i] power. Money is often [i]identified with[/i] power. It [i]would[/i] be Marxist to say that the [i]natural[/i] and [i]primary [/i]motivation of human nature is money/power. However, Lincoln was not operating on natural motivations. He was acting on a base and unnatural [i]love of power[/i], and because money was a [i]means[/i] of maintaining and increasing his personal power [i]and[/i] the psychological extension of his power, the State of which he was the head, he waged a war against people who wanted to be [i]left alone[/i].

There is nothing "Marxist" about that claim. Don't buy into the Lincoln hagiography.

Do you want to know why the Southerners fought? Just ask a black soldier who was fighting for the Confederacy. One such black soldier was asked by a Union soldier why he was fighting against them, his response was very simple, and very true:

He replied, "Because [i]you're [/i]down [i]here." [/i]

By the way: I was born and raised in New England, Lillabett.

~Sternhauser

Edited February 27, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='26 February 2010 - 08:28 AM' timestamp='1267190884' post='2063177']
US, I too am sorry that you're a Marxist. But you're not alone. All Marxists are sorry they're Marxists. It's an intellectual point of view that breeds cynicism and feeds on human disappointment and jadedness. A very unhappy bunch.
[/quote]
You may feel free to explain those quotes from St. Lincoln that I posted earlier at any point you'd like. When you provide a satisfactory explanation, then we can discuss my Marxism.

Until then, I'll be on the corner selling toilet seats to nuns with dysentery.

[Skinzo]

The South attacked the North at Fort Sumter, and so war began. Lincoln responded by going to war with the south.
Lincoln's motive was to preserve the union, NOT to end slavery. He had supported a constitutional amendment prior to the war which would have preserved slavery forever in the South. Lincoln was not an abolitionist; he was a compromise choice for Republicans in 1860. The real abolitionists did not like Lincoln. Lincoln wanted only to prevent any NEW slave states from entering the union.

S.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 February 2010 - 09:02 AM' timestamp='1267128155' post='2062930']
Marxist theory explains historical incidents, like war, as by-products of the capitalist system. For example, the idea that Lincoln fought the Civil War because he was "trying to preserve his loot" or his motives were "fiscal," is a Marxist one. The Marxist explanation for the American Revolution is the business class becoming annoyed at taxes on their "loot."

IOW, materialism ($$$) is the driving force of history.


I am not drinking that kool-aide.
[/quote]

The Marxists are not the first to argue that financial gain is a motive for war. Wars have been fought for financial gain since the beginning of time. Why for example, did the Romans or any other empire seek expansion? Surely not to become poor. The Marxists are kind of late in coming to that theory. We read in St. James epistle:
"1 From whence are wars and contentions among you? Are they not hence, from your concupiscences, which war in your members? 2 You covet, and have not: you kill, and envy, and can not obtain. You contend and war, and you have not, because you ask not." St. James, chapter 4 verses 1-2.

[WillT]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='25 February 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1267121738' post='2062899']
I am familiar with the revisionist argument for a Marxist interpretation of the Civil War. I reject it.

Where the Civil War is concerned, what I am most interested in these days is the question of why the residents of the former Confederate states have such a proclivity for re-enacting a war they lost ... e.g., "Lost Cause" psychologically, behavior patterns of defeated civilizations, etc ...
[/quote]
I can answer that for you with no "psychology" needed. The effects of the War are STILL being felt across the South! Look at the list of states richest-poorest and tell me who is on the bottom? The states that made up the Confederacy. Same with almost anything else, healthcare, education,etc. The only list the former Confederate states tend to be at the top of is Charitable Donations per capita(I saw that a few years ago so it may not be current). At any rate, that war destroyed the economy of the South. Where did most of the battles occur? Which side lost a higher percentage of it's young workforce? Which armies burned cities and farms to the ground as they "marched to the sea"? Recovering from the type of "total war" waged by Grant and Sherman does not come easily. So that's part one.

Part two is the social status of the former Confederacy. My family is from Illinois, but I moved to Mississippi when I was two years old. Anytime I have met anyone from the Notheast or Midwest and tell them I grew up in Mississippi they act suprised that I am actually wearing shoes (not to mention that I tied them myself!) and are doubly shocked that I am able to string words together to form a coherent thought let alone a whole paragraph. And if they bother to find out I'm not racist that's an even bigger shock to the system. Too many people believe the stereotype the see on TV and at the movies that all Southerners are ignorant, racist, and backwards. Of course, it makes the Northern victory seem all the more important in the history books when people think the stereotypical Southerner would be running the country if Licoln hadn't invaded and pounded the South into submission.

To sum it all up, most of the South still cares about the Civil War because it is still very much alive in their current economic and social situation while a VERY small minority are racist and think slavery was reasonable.