im startting from scratch with this question. i have a feeling many people will say that the south had every right to withdraw itself from what could be seen as an oppressive northern regime. i tend to favor states rights so im sort of caught up in the middle. when answering please consider the U.S. today in it's role to combat terrorism by overthrowing saddam and building a democracy in iraq. also consider what is happening between china and taiwan.

My dad almost kicked me outta the house, (when I still lived at home) because I don't think it's right to call people like Jefferson Davis an American hero.

To me, thats like calling George Washington a british hero.

I don't think that the confederate soldiers, or officials should be honored in this country. If people feel the need to honor them, fine, I cannot control another persons destiny, (yet), but I feel it is a disservice to the American soldiers who died protecting the Stars & Stripes, rather than rebelling against them.

--------------------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

start with the legal issues then go moral

but I don't see how you can argue moral issues.

--------------------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

well morally, the south could argue that the north was taxing them to death. remember the civil war wasnt about slavery it was about money.

>well morally, the south could argue that the north was taxing
>them to death.

I guess. That's not why they seceded though.

>remember the civil war wasnt about slavery it
>was about money.

That's an oxymoron; slavery WAS about money. The south's whole economy was based on slavery.

--------------------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

the reasons were not morally righteous or for liberation of any sort only so they could continue the lucrative genocide.

so they had the right to do so in your opinion. how does this fit in with your view of the U.S spreading democracy over the world and how about china and taiwan?

empire spreading christianity.

As far as China and Taiwan I am ignorant of their history so I can't speak on it.

...that lucrative, anymore. Actually, the economy based on slave labor was falling, especially for small farmers and plantations.

slavery still fueled British industrialization even after slavery with share cropping. It was dangerous.

But read this link here:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm
And tell me where the Confederacy allowed states to abolish slavery did not impede on "states rights"

they are a burden now
most of the fedral budget to states goes to the south
and I don't see them giving much in return

If the Union would have let them go
they would be third world countries now trying to sneak thru our borders

prolly taken over by mexico

Texas may have held out for a bit.
In all not worth the bloodshed of a war

So you would just ex-out Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Orlanda, Austin, Dallas, Houston, THE ENTIRE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI and ALL it has brought us.

In fact. I don't believe I can name a black person of great impact in this country that aint from the damn South, or the Islands.

That sort of struggle is a culdren (sp) it's like a social blacksmith, and the hotter it gets, it is able to forge stronger PEOPLE.

shit. Without the south, this country would just be another cold, barren EURO wastland devoid of any potent energies, stregths or pagentries.

Name any thing you love about America and I would wager it has the south stamped all over it.

get outta here with that.




******************************

_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

I hate grits, they're nasty
and fuck a klan


The only thing the South has contributed to US history is a bunch of bloodshed, heartaches and headaches.

South than it has in the north. Look it up.

It ain't brought us SHIT that wasn't inherit in the country to begin with.

Get outta here with that.

Roll thru Benson Hurst, Brooklyn right quick. I bet you'll be safer if u rolled thru Metter, Georgia.

Pass me with that bullshit.


******************************

_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

And you'd likely be one of those people trying to illegally immigrate to the north.

I would not.

Would the fact that the majority of blacks woulda had to stay in the South (since the major black migrations north happened after the war) change your belief that the North should've allowed the South to secede?

in time they would eventually overthrow slavery and form their own areas.....something like that

Slavery is a system that would eventually collapse under it's own weight.

I was with you until you said mississippi. That is the most ass backwards state in the union. Cuba has better standards of living and lower mortality rates. fuckin cuba. Missippi is last in almost everything. Education, economy, healthcare. We'd be better of replacing it with puerto Rico.

....?


******************************

_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

Har!

You must live in the South then.

There's nothing in the Constutiton that expressly forbids secession, and the fact that the Union forced six Southern states to write in a clause into their state constitutions renouncing secession could be interpreted as a sign that the feds recognized it as a continuing political option.

Shit, look at Maine. I think that more secession has happened there over the past 200 years than in the rest of North America.

Morally? No, it wasn't. Regardless of how sympathizers try to dress it up with the supposed nobility of states' rights, it was about Southern paranoia about slavery.

ok, so most people agree that the south was within in their rights to secede and i agree. however think about the implications. the south was being forced to comply with the northern states. as a result it hurt the south economiclly and put the lucrative slave business in jeopardy. if you are a senator form the north at that time how do you argue? since clearly there is no LEGAL obligation to force the south to comply you would have to argue on MORAL grounds. i bring this up because our current president has argued similiarly.

>clearly there is no LEGAL obligation to force the south to
>comply you would have to argue on MORAL grounds. i bring this
>up because our current president has argued similiarly.

Interesting... I see where you're going with this.

--------------------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

No message

Legally, they were well within their rights...morally? That's a complicated issue. What exactly is it that you are asking? there were several issues behind the war.


******************************

_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

when people say states rights, what do you think it meant states RIGHTS to do exactly?

******************************

_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

I don't know where you got that from.
__________________________
Sports and Politics are all found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

******************************

_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

Because it was more about protecting their primary source of income and not giving in to industrialization that took place in the Northern cities. Most southern states knew that industrialization would kill their primary sources of income.

It was never about slaves...just because the North were free-states doesn't mean that they didn't have slaves scattered about either. My thing is that the biggest reason that the North were free-states was because of industrialization, which would require a different type of man-power rather than an agricultural based economy. Slaves, like everyone said, was an add-on, and I think it was moreso an incentive for black people to fight for the Union rather than the Confederacy.

But did the South have a right to secede, I believe so...how it would've turned out would be a different matter altogether.

I will never understand how people to this day can still say stuff like that.

--------------------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

Slavery may have been one of the pillars supporting the Southern way of life at the time, but it was big honking pillar--the type that, when cut down, would send the whole structure crashing down.

States' rights? Free soil? Popular sovereignty in the new territories? Slaves.

The status quo antebellum was a convoluted web of sectional and political interests and conflicts, but slavery was its linchpin.

>I will never understand how people to this day can still say
>stuff like that.

Folks like to be in denial. In high school, the history teacher told his classes that slavery was a "necessary evil...now let's move on" and one of my friends stood up and hit him on the head.

>>I will never understand how people to this day can still
>say
>>stuff like that.
>
>Folks like to be in denial. In high school, the history
>teacher told his classes that slavery was a "necessary
>evil...now let's move on" and one of my friends stood up and
>hit him on the head.
Who the hell is in denial? I didn't say it was a necessary evil. I didn't say anything close to that. I said that the Southern secession and the Civil War was not about slavery, which it wasn't. The North didn't care about freeing a ton of slaves, because it wasn't illegal until the middle of the civil war. There were plenty of Northerners that owned slaves, so if slavery was the issue of secession, the south never would've been against it.
The secession was due to a fundamental difference in where the country was headed economically. The South wanted to protect it's agricultural based economy, and the states were being overpowered by the federal government, which led to the secession. I doubt if any of those congressional meetings dealt with the issue of slavery and how morally reprehensible it was.

So for the record, I'm not in denial. I just know that slavery wasn't the reason for the secession, because that wasn't the primary issue for either the North or the South.

.

spew this crap
it shows how easliy led astray some people are
especially southerners with their centureis of sub par education Jim Crow/slavery etc.

If you have any.
******************************

_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net

I believe (hope) that's what folks are saying when they say "It wasn't about slavery". The morality supporting abolition was just window dressing for the ecnomic impact that abolition would have on the south.

If the north could've benefited from slavery, or if the south hadn't been as dependant on slavery, Lincoln wouldn't have said sheeeit about the slaves.

It wasn't about freeing any type of slavery. Slavery wasn't an issue for either the North and the South. They didn't care about slavery. The issues at the table were protecting the union.

Slavery was an add-on for the war. The North didn't care that the South had slaves, that wasn't the reason for the secession and the Civil War.

You honestly think if the North could've figured out a way to benefit from slavery in industrialization that they would've abolished it...no way.

>It wasn't about freeing any type of slavery. Slavery wasn't
>an issue for either the North and the South. They didn't care
>about slavery. The issues at the table were protecting the
>union.

OK, but *why* did they have to protect the Union? What was the issue that divided the Union? It was slavery, point blank.

>Slavery was an add-on for the war. The North didn't care that
>the South had slaves, that wasn't the reason for the secession
>and the Civil War.

The North did care that the South had slaves, but they were willing to accept it as a necessary evil to keep the Union together. But at the same time they did not want to perpetuate it any further, so they did not want slavery to spread outside of the south.

Which leads us to the reason for the secession: Lincoln wanted to ban new slave states from entering the Union. The South saw this as a threat because as new free states entered the Union the South would be at a political disadvantage, and they feared that abolition would then be forced on them. That's why they seceded.

>You honestly think if the North could've figured out a way to
>benefit from slavery in industrialization that they would've
>abolished it...no way.

No, but the fact that the North didn't depend on slavery allowed them to come to grips with the immorality of it, without having to rationalize it because their way of life depended on it like they did in the South. So no, the North was not inherently more moral than the South, it's just that they were in a position to look at the morality of it from a more detached, objective position, whereas the south was not.

--------------------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

>>It wasn't about freeing any type of slavery. Slavery wasn't
>>an issue for either the North and the South. They didn't
>care
>>about slavery. The issues at the table were protecting the
>>union.
>
>OK, but *why* did they have to protect the Union? What was the
>issue that divided the Union? It was slavery, point blank.
>
>>Slavery was an add-on for the war. The North didn't care
>that
>>the South had slaves, that wasn't the reason for the
>secession
>>and the Civil War.
>
>The North did care that the South had slaves, but they were
>willing to accept it as a necessary evil to keep the Union
>together. But at the same time they did not want to perpetuate
>it any further, so they did not want slavery to spread outside
>of the south.
>
>Which leads us to the reason for the secession: Lincoln wanted
>to ban new slave states from entering the Union. The South saw
>this as a threat because as new free states entered the Union
>the South would be at a political disadvantage, and they
>feared that abolition would then be forced on them. That's why
>they seceded.
The biggest problem I have with this is that the banishment of further slave states from the Union wouldn't necessarily lead to the abolition of slavery. My thing is that even people in the North had slaves, so slavery wouldn't be much of an issue there.
As for the free states vs. slave states, that was more political than anything else. You're absolutely right, the South would be at a political disadvantage. But not because of that (or not only). It was moreso that the Northern population was also growing, and the South wanted balance in the House of Representatives. And with more people up North, there wasn't much the South could do to balance out the House.

>>You honestly think if the North could've figured out a way
>to
>>benefit from slavery in industrialization that they would've
>>abolished it...no way.
>
>No, but the fact that the North didn't depend on slavery
>allowed them to come to grips with the immorality of it,
>without having to rationalize it because their way of life
>depended on it like they did in the South. So no, the North
>was not inherently more moral than the South, it's just that
>they were in a position to look at the morality of it from a
>more detached, objective position, whereas the south was
>not.
Don't get me wrong, there were people in the North that though slavery was an abomination and should be abolished and rightfully so. But they weren't the majority of people in the North, and wasn't enough to convince the government that it was worth alienating half the country over. It wasn't that much of an issue to the North.

Here's a couple of sites (because my history is still a little rusty)
http://www.swcivilwar.com/cw_causes.html
http://members.tripod.com/~greatamericanhistory/gr02013.htm

And don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-slavery and I know the evils of it. I don't think that it was the cause of the Southern secession (which was more politically driven than anything else) and slavery wasn't as big of an issue.

>The biggest problem I have with this is that the banishment of
>further slave states from the Union wouldn't necessarily lead
>to the abolition of slavery. My thing is that even people in
>the North had slaves, so slavery wouldn't be much of an issue
>there.
>As for the free states vs. slave states, that was more
>political than anything else. You're absolutely right, the
>South would be at a political disadvantage. But not because of
>that (or not only). It was moreso that the Northern population
>was also growing, and the South wanted balance in the House of
>Representatives. And with more people up North, there wasn't
>much the South could do to balance out the House.

Well if only free states were allowed into the Union, along with the growing population in the North, the south was afraid that eventually they would be at such a disadvantage wrt representation that the free states could pass abolition laws in Congress and there would be nothing politically the south could do about it. So when Lincoln stood firm on not allowing slave states into the union they saw that as a threat to slavery in the south, so that's why they decided to secede.

>Don't get me wrong, there were people in the North that though
>slavery was an abomination and should be abolished and
>rightfully so. But they weren't the majority of people in the
>North, and wasn't enough to convince the government that it
>was worth alienating half the country over. It wasn't that
>much of an issue to the North.

The majority of people in the north were still racists, but they didn't like slavery either, but yeah they were willing to let slavery in the south continue as long as the Union was maintained. So yeah most northerners weren't righteous crusaders on a mission to end the evil of slavery; they didn't particularly care *why* the south seceded, but once they did northerners saw them as traitors regardless.

>And don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-slavery and I know the
>evils of it. I don't think that it was the cause of the
>Southern secession (which was more politically driven than
>anything else) and slavery wasn't as big of an issue.

I know you're not pro-slavery, but I just don't see how people can still argue that it wasn't about slavery, that it was "politically driven", when the political issue that drove it was slavery.

--------------------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

...repeat what everyone said, but I do have to agree that they had the right to secede. And to tell you the truth, if I were a leader in the South at the time, I would have pushed for our independence, as well.

The North couldn't afford to let the South go. With all of the industrialization going on up North, they were entirely too dependent on Southern agriculture, but the South was losing out on the deal. The north bought raw materials from the south cheap as hell, then turned around and sold their products for a madd profit. The North was booming, the South was still broke, and 140 years later, you can still see the lasting effects of this dynamic.

Honestly, I think the whole idea of seceding was a bluff on the part of the South because they figured that they held all of the chips. The North wasn't going for it, so the South had to follow through.

The moral argument is a bunch of BS. Northerns were still making money off of the back of that slave labor in the South. But without looking like greedy hypocits, they had to add that institution to the mix so that they did have some sort of grounds for war. That's where that sense of northern "Morality" came from.

deal with Europe. A couple solid treaties and foreign interests might have exerted force on the southern states behalf.

...Venezula is doing with oil to China. Watch how the US gov't responds to that one, especially with the continuous rising in gas prices. The US can't afford a fight with China, that's why they won't have Taiwan's back, but I guarantee they'll start calling Venezula a "terrorist state" and we send some troops down there to protect our oil interests. 11% of our oil comes from down there. If decide to cut ties (ie-sucession from the overlord), all hell is gonna break loose. Our economy (ie-1860's Northern States) is too fragile to allow that to happen.

And people ask "what good is history?" That shit will always repeat itself.

That wouldn't work because most of Europe had ended slavery by then. England and France withdrew out of trade agreements by the time the Civil War started, so the South was to be on their own regardless.
__________________________
Sports and Politics are all found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

These countries were still heavily invested in exploration and colonization around the world. They were finding other sources to feed their industialization monster.

History lesson #85: What Conference was attended by the all the major governments of Europe within 20 years of US Emancipation that lead to the tearing apart of the "Dark Continent"? So, once again, like everyone in the post is saying about the North, it wouldn't have been an issue of morality on the part of the Europeans. It would have boiled down to economics. Were they benefiting more through trade with the northern states or the southern states? And ultimately, who did England and France side with during the Civil War?

And the transition would have been made much easier with the Industrial Revolution, which had been going on in England and other parts of Europe decades before the Civil War.

It was the South that couldn't live without the North. In fact, I'd suspect that England would use economic sanctions to try to force the South out of slavery, as they did with the Ottomans and Eastern Europe, so I think they would have had a much harder time surviving without the lucrative trade agreements of that era.
__________________________
Sports and Politics are all found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

...even if Western Europe did cut economic ties with the South, which it never would have done, the South would have had the leeway to jack up the price of its sales to the North as an independent country. With independent political sovereignty, the South would have been able to extort great sums of money from the North, possibly sending them into an early recession and putting a hault to, or at least slowing down, overall northern industrialization.

But we could sit back and debate the "what if's" all day.

Legal nor moral.

Despite what the revisionists say, the Civil War was about slavery, as the sectional tension of the time was always centered around. 3/5ths Compromise, Bloody Kansas, Compromise of 1850, Missouri Compromise, the birth of the Republican Party, Fugitive Slave Act, etc...all of that was centered on the fact that not only did the South want to make sure that slavery existed everywhere in the Union as possible, and through a pro-slavery consensus in new territories continued their influence on American politics.

Secession in and of itself was legal, as a number of Framers stated at the time. But secession through slavery wasn't, as it was akin to kidnapping. Although slaves weren't considered full citizens, they were still residents of the U.S., which meant they had a right to decide whether or not they wanted to stay with the Union. Of course, Southerners were not going to give them that option.

Hence, the South was completely in the wrong, and Lincoln was right to characterize it as an illegal rebellion.
__________________________
Sports and Politics are all found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

if slavery was illegal in the southern states they could legally secede? interesting. i keep thinking of when the framers were writing up the constitution. it was a long debate over slavery. the south didnt want it written into the consitution as illegal but the north did. so at the time there was nothing illegal about owning slaves but then the north changed their mind and forced the south to comply?

wow.

_¸»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«SiG»¬æ¤º²°¯¯°²º¤æ¬«¸_

absurd theater

"Moral fibre in your diet it helps eliminate all your bullshit" - PG

.

Couldn't have said it any better.

watch y'all start paying attention to his other political positions.

not 3X
nobody
but because you right on one thing that doesn't extend to everything

>not 3X
>nobody
>but because you right on one thing that doesn't extend to
>everything

And that, my friends, is the end of this here post.

*Hands one to Ex*

Here's to March Madness!

another cosign from me! Been studying the Civil War for my history degree, and as much revisionist bullshit they've tried to pump me with, I ain't buying it. Everything, the politics of the 1950's especially, revolved around the South's obssession with ensuring slavery was central to the union. And if not, they were off. Sure most of the North, not even Lincoln, were abolitionists, but to me it seemed the South got all out paranoid about slavery, especially in the new territories. Fuck economics, political autonomy, cultural issues - slavery was a central part of all of those issues for the South, the war was about slavery.

...that newer generation of academia is returning to the point of view you and Expertise are describing.

>Legal nor moral.
>
>Despite what the revisionists say, the Civil War was about
>slavery, as the sectional tension of the time was always
>centered around. 3/5ths Compromise, Bloody Kansas, Compromise
>of 1850, Missouri Compromise, the birth of the Republican
>Party, Fugitive Slave Act, etc...all of that was centered on
>the fact that not only did the South want to make sure that
>slavery existed everywhere in the Union as possible, and
>through a pro-slavery consensus in new territories continued
>their influence on American politics.
This is where I disagree. I really don't think the
South cared if the North wanted slaves. They didn't
want the North to tell them that they CAN'T have any
slaves. It was more for protection of what they deemed
a crucial part of their way of life, rather than
spreading it, as well as protection from a growing population in the North, which would put them at a disadvantage in the House (which I agree, the influence in American politics was a big issue). Slavery was already protected in the Constitution by that time, so by that, it's not like the Union was against slavery (up until 1863).

Then again, I doubt if the North cared if the South
had slaves, because if they did, there would be a lot
more anti-slave legislation, and that would be
enforced even more in the South, and throughout the country.

>Secession in and of itself was legal, as a number of Framers
>stated at the time. But secession through slavery wasn't, as
>it was akin to kidnapping. Although slaves weren't considered
>full citizens, they were still residents of the U.S., which
>meant they had a right to decide whether or not they wanted to
>stay with the Union. Of course, Southerners were not going to
>give them that option.
The problem with this was that they weren't considered
"residents" of the US. The FREE men were considered
3/5th's of a man. The 3/5th's of a man thing were for voting purposes, and slaves couldn't vote. The slaves were considered
"property". So the kidnapping theory wouldn't apply,
because it was seen as you can't kidnap anything you
own. The biggest point of slavery was their rights
were for the most part at the discretion of their
masters. As morally wrong as that is, that was what
was legal. If slaves had any sorts of rights, most of
the abuses and whippings and murders for
insubordination would get masters at the very least
arrested (although the times dictated very little, if
anything would happen to them).

>This is where I disagree. I really don't think the
>South cared if the North wanted slaves. They didn't
>want the North to tell them that they CAN'T have any
>slaves. It was more for protection of what they deemed
>a crucial part of their way of life, rather than
>spreading it.
>Then again, I doubt if the North cared if the South
>had slaves, because if they did, there would be a lot
>more anti-slave legislation, and that would be
>enforced even more in the South.

They didn't care if the North had slaves, but they wanted slavery accessible everywhere else, particularly the new territories and states. That would make the residents of those areas sympathetic to slavery also, which would help them gain an advantage in Congress and maintain a pro-slavery White House, as most of the presidents before Lincoln were.

If the North were to introduce several more anti-slavery measures, the Civil War would have happened a lot sooner. The whole purpose of the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 was to keep equal power between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states, so the North couldn't pass those measures anyway, at least through the Senate.

>The problem with this was that they weren't considered
>"residents" of the US. The FREE men were considered
>3/5th's of a man. The 3/5th's of a man thing were for voting
>purposes, and slaves couldn't vote. The slaves were
>considered
>"property".

Wrong. The 3/5ths Compromise did not extend to freedmen. It was only to slaves. Freedmen were full citizens.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~c030115/30001RES/tsld004.htm

>So the kidnapping theory wouldn't apply,
>because it was seen as you can't kidnap anything you
>own. The biggest point of slavery was their rights
>were for the most part at the discretion of their
>masters. As morally wrong as that is, that was what
>was legal. If slaves had any sorts of rights, most of
>the abuses and whippings and murders for
>insubordination would get masters at the very least
>arrested (although the times dictated very little, if
>anything would happen to them).

But the fact that the slaves were counted to begin with makes them residents; not full citizens, but still a part of the nation they were in.

According to the Declaration of Independence which was the standard of secession of the time, "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." It defined secession as justifiable when liberty is being threatened. It's hypocritical and quite backward for a group of people to secede - claiming oppression, mind you - for the express purpose to keep others in bondage.

The slavery issue was about extending freedom to EVERYONE, while it was the South that wanted to limit liberty, which makes the Civil War, by the standards placed forth by the Founding Fathers, an illegal rebellion.
__________________________
Sports and Politics are all found here:

http://expertise.blogdrive.com

considered human beings (men) not by science at the time not by law
not by the church.

It's so hard for us to understand that today, esp as black people
but still if you read the racist idealogy even the cleverly diguised ones it's all about making blacks out to be something less than human.

>when answering please consider theU.S. today in it's role to combat terrorism by >overthrowing saddam and building a democracy in iraq. also consider what is happening >between china and taiwan.


______________________________

*TWINNING*

>>when answering please consider theU.S. today in it's role to
>combat terrorism by >overthrowing saddam and building a
>democracy in iraq. also consider what is happening >between
>china and taiwan.

I didn't write it but to me it means that the U.S. really does not have the moral authority to build anybody's democracy.

>I didn't write it but to me it means that the U.S. really does
>not have the moral authority to build anybody's democracy.

I think his argument is rather that the U.S. really does not have the legal authority to build anybody's democracy, so it has to be argued on moral grounds instead.

--------------------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

>>I didn't write it but to me it means that the U.S. really
>does
>>not have the moral authority to build anybody's democracy.
>
>I think his argument is rather that the U.S. really does not
>have the legal authority to build anybody's democracy, so it
>has to be argued on moral grounds instead.
>

im not argueing either way, im just asking. but i have come to that conclusion.

in particular:

>clearly there is no LEGAL obligation to force the south to
>comply you would have to argue on MORAL grounds. i bring this
>up because our current president has argued similiarly.

--------------------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

just curious.