tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6226269873507053740.post551692230315968005..comments2024-03-28T09:47:25.719-04:00Comments on Daffey Thoughts: Anniversary of the big warDavid Griffeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06629314279592541401noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6226269873507053740.post-55756800230204292982011-04-30T18:47:44.836-04:002011-04-30T18:47:44.836-04:00Call me crazy, but my theory is both sides were ra...Call me crazy, but my theory is both sides were racist; the North did practice segregation for a century after the war, whatever other complications were involved.<br /><br />That said, I think the problem is seeing the war in terms of only one layer. It was about secession. Which was about the place of Federal authority. Which was at the time leaning towards interfering in slavery. Which was immoral (with the possible exception of those slaves that were educated and then freed, which was probably the exception rather than the rule, if it ever did happen and isn't just a modern legend), but which I don't think the federal government was supposed to be stepping in to stop or was authorized Constitutionally to step in and stop. And I think there was a reason for that, specifically avoiding the sort of modern situation where the law is used as a bludgeon one way or the other on issues that really require cultural change. And I think that racism as a whole would probably not be as resilient today if cultural forces had engaged each other directly; yes, slavery would have continued longer, but you wouldn't today have people thinking blacks are devils' spawn simply because some bureaucrats burnt down half the country over it -- they'd still have other reasons, perhaps, but they'd have one less reason. So at the end of the day, I feel about the same way over it as I do about the vigilante who blows up abortion clinics: yeah, you're saving lives immediately, but at what long-term cost to your or society's integrity? Let's save lives and free slaves within the rule of law, not abandon the rule of law to play hero.<br /><br />If, on the other hand, one wants to argue for a monarchy or other morally authoritative government, that can be argued; what can't be argued is that a constitutional republic should behave like a morally authoritative and/or absolute monarchy, since that deprives the republic of its advantages over demagoguery.S_Cobblernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6226269873507053740.post-48201376970773262011-04-12T15:21:36.190-04:002011-04-12T15:21:36.190-04:00nice article.
Missed you being on here.nice article. <br />Missed you being on here.deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02320102107597835487noreply@blogger.com