The disconnect between the two concepts has to do with a nation's right to preserve itself and to preserve the rule of law. Germany did not necessarily have the right to invade Poland, but the Allies certainly had the right to declare war in defense of their treaty with the victims. The difference between war and mass murder shouldn't even be an issue of debate here.ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Governments are neither moral or immoral. They dont have friends and they dont act as Individuals act. Perfect example, it is murder if an Individual decides to shot someone dead and claim their house, mass murder if they kill a whole community. It is NOT murder if a country goes to war, killing how ever many people it takes to accomplish its goal and that can and does include taking other peoples homes and property.
Because that's the government's job. Individuals will (usually) act out of self interest, not community or state interest.An Individual is a bully if they force others to do as they want, a Government is simply promoting the greater good for the Society when it does it.
You keep trying to make the point that secession was illegal. I responded to you once in the other thread, pointing out that the Constitution never says a word (then OR now) about the right to secede but now you're back again trying to throw the same assertions against the wall - they're still not sticking.When I argue that the South had no legal right to quit the Union it has nothing to do with morals or right and wrong. It has to do with law and the responsibility of the Government and those Governed.
The basis for claiming that the South did not have the legal right to secede is soley based on the fact that the North won the war. Period. It's no different than if we'd lost the Revolution and the British could claim we had no right to declare our independence -- as callous and superficial as it may sound, there's truth to the fact that the victors write history, not the losers. If the South had won, Southern history books would never claim it was an illegal war.
Which places the onus for governing justly on the government, right where it should be.laws and Governments are worthless if people can just decide " damn, I dont like that" and quit the Government or ignore the law.
You're oversimplifying. First, it wasn't so much that the colonists didn't want to pay taxes -- they, in fact, sought any means at hand to avoid paying ANY taxes. And the British compounded the situation by multiplying the tax rates by severalfold to cover their enormous £133 million debt left over from the Seven Years' War. That was the catalyst that sparked American revolt, not the common element of taxation. The issue of representation was not important until the tax rates were jacked so high.Rebellions are neither right nor wrong they just are. BUT one can not compare The US rebellion against Britian and the US Civil War in the same way. Britian gave the Colonies NO representation at all in the greater Government. Ohh sure they let the Colonies have local Governments, but th people had NO representation at all in England, the King and parliment could simply ignore, supercede or change any local law they chose with NO input from the people.
In fact the Colonies would not have revolted ( rather they wouldnt have had the numbers needed) if England and given them representation.
A very strong case could be (and has been) made that the election of the anti-slavery candidate Lincoln was in itself seen as provocation and incentive by the south to secede. Until the shelling of Sumter, I doubt that most government officials really believed that there would be open bloodshed.And when the South split, Lincoln tried his damndest to avoid a shooting war, he didnt even raise an army till AFTER the south attacked Federal Forts in the South.
