Mark Twain shreds Republican Loy Mauch

Two recent posts seem to have collided.

Rep. Loy Mauch is one of three Republican incumbents in the Arkansas legislature who just got cut off from the state party’s campaign funds on account of publicly praising slavery.

I mentioned earlier today that Mauch is a Neo-Confederate loon. Jim Burroway has more on Mauch at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Here is the Republican legislator in 2003:

Nowhere in the Holy Bible have I found a word of condemnation for the operation of slavery, Old or New Testament. If slavery was so bad, why didn’t Jesus, Paul or the prophets say something?

This country already lionizes Wehrmacht leaders. They go by the names of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, etc. These Marxists not only destroyed the Constitution they were sworn to uphold, but apostatized the word of God. Either these depraved infidels or the Constitution and Scriptures are in error. I’m more persuaded by the word of God.

And here’s Mauch in 2009:

If slavery were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?

The South has always stood by the Constitution and limited government. When one attacks the Confederate Battle Flag, he is certainly denouncing these principles of government as well as Christianity.

Yes, nothing says Jesus like treason in defense of slavery.

Burroway notes that most American Christians — even in the South — no longer share Loy Mauch’s fondness for slavery:

Most Christians have accepted the former position — including the Southern Baptists — even if they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge what that means for the principle of biblical inerrancy.

Which brings us back to yesterday’s post on Mark Twain and his essay, “Bible Teaching and Religious Practice.” I’m happy for the excuse to quote again from that essay, from Twain’s incisive section on slavery. I’m less happy, though, that quoting this turns out to be so timely:

The texts remain: it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession – and take the credit of the correction. As she will presently do in this instance.

Christian England supported slavery and encouraged it for two hundred and fifty years, and her church’s consecrated ministers looked on, sometimes taking an active hand, the rest of the time indifferent. England’s interest in the business may be called a Christian interest, a Christian industry. She had her full share in its revival after a long period of inactivity, and [this] revival was a Christian monopoly; that is to say, it was in the hands of Christian countries exclusively. English parliaments aided the slave traffic and protected it; two English kings held stock in slave-catching companies. The first regular English slave hunter — John Hawkins, of still revered memory — made such successful havoc, on his second voyage, in the matter of surprising and burning villages, and maiming, slaughtering, capturing, and selling their unoffending inhabitants, that his delighted queen conferred the chivalric honor of knighthood on him — a rank which had acquired its chief esteem and distinction in other and earlier fields of Christian effort. The new knight, with characteristic English frankness and brusque simplicity, chose as his device the figure of a negro slave, kneeling and in chains. Sir John’s work was the invention of Christians, was to remain a bloody and awful monopoly in the hands of Christians for a quarter of a millennium, was to destroy homes, separate families, enslave friendless men and women, and break a myriad of human hearts, to the end that Christian nations might be prosperous and comfortable, Christian churches be built, and the gospel of the meek and merciful Redeemer be spread abroad in the earth; and so in the name of his ship, unsuspected but eloquent and clear, lay hidden prophecy. She was called The Jesus.

But at last in England, an illegitimate Christian rose against slavery. It is curious that when a Christian rises against a rooted wrong at all, he is usually an illegitimate Christian, member of some despised and bastard sect. There was a bitter struggle, but in the end the slave trade had to go — and went. The Biblical authorization remained, but the practice changed.

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

White evangelicalism is white nationalism.
Concordance-ism backfires for anti-gay preacher
Life is not a game of musical chairs
The day after
  • stly92

    ” The texts remain: it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the
    world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also
    never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession – and take the
    credit of the correction. As she will presently do in this instance.”

    Geez-us, that is so true. He could be talking about today. Someone check, are we sure Twain didn’t have a time machine? Or did he maybe go snooping through american history files in the computer that time he was briefly about the starship Enterprise?

  • Soylent H

    This part struck me the same way.  And I have never heard a coherent rebuttal.  All I know is, I’m increasingly tired of those piously proclaiming themselves the most moral among us, dropping in “at the tail of the procession.” so many times.  I want to say every time, but that’s probably not true.

    What really irritates me, is he said this over 100 years ago, and people just whistled quietly on by the statement, and carried on as if a huge and self-evident hypocrisy in christian practice had not just been revealed.  It opens a huge can of worms, I guess.  But still, to be even remotely intellectually consistent on the issue, any church needs to have a formal policy on what was cultural truth and what is timeless truth, an acknowledgement that sometimes cultural truth is mistaken for timeless truth for long, and unfortunate periods of time.  And then have a method for challenging those definitions, which preferably would involve participation by the church body, or at least be done in a fully transparent manner.  I just don’t understand how they can live like pharisees, but without ever defining the laws they so adamantly enforce.  Which, of course, if after I wonder why they choose to live like pharisees, instead of the god-made-man they worship (I used to, but I’ve had enough of organized religion, for basically these reasons).

    As for the time machine, I thought the same thing except in relation to his description of the pre-solar system.  More to the point, I don’t think it’s so much that he had a time machine, as we’ve just been stuck in time.

  • Joshua

    they can live like pharisees

    You mean, worshipping in synagogues, preferring study over animal sacrifice, regarding the Old Testament prophets as scripture, understanding scripture by means of reasoned and opinionated debate, saying things like “”What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow”, that kind of thing?

    Jesus’ rants about Pharisees by themselves don’t give an accurate picture even of Jesus’ impression of their movement, let alone an accurate impression of the movement itself. Until you study the religious context of the time, it’s not evident how much he drew from them.

    Using the word Pharisee as a derogatory term is anti-Semitic, as all modern Judaism is descended from them. Please stop it.

  • vsm

    Dissing Sadducees is still cool, right?

  • Joshua

    :)

    I don’t think there are any Sadducees around these days, but then I used to think that about Samaritans, so go figure.

    The lack of a temple would be a problem, presumably.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Missing part of your head would indeed be a SERIOUS problem.

  • Joshua

    I’m not a Yankee revisionist, I’m not an American at all.

    And sovereignty issues don’t matter, the Confederacy had to fight a war because they were a bunch of dicks.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    “sovereignty issues don’t matter, the Confederacy had to fight a war because they were a bunch of dicks.”

    My, how did Harvard ever pass this one over?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    If you get your ethics from popularity vs. principle.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    If you get your ethics from popularity vs. principle.

  • http://spacecoyotevega.livejournal.com/ vega

    (tw- animal cruelty, slavery, torture, implied rape, dead baby joke)

    Hah. Ahahaahaahaahaa. And damn popularity, the ethical thing would have been to acknowledge that the Southern plantation owners owned those people, and the North should have respected their right to take their ball and go home when the rules changed.

    And I should totally respect my neighbor’s “No Trespassing” sign when they’re setting their cat on fire in the back yard.

    Oh better yet, their gardener. Who was taken taken prisoner in a foreign civil war, but it’s all kosher now because the neighbors bought him fair and square, and he should be grateful that he’s got a nice warm cage in the basement and gets quality table scraps at least once every day. And his children will never have to worry about finding work, either, because the neighbors own them, too, it’s all sorted out and legal, according to papers filled out in triplicate by the neighbors and those people who torched his home-town and killed the less useful members of his family. That’s all assuming of course that they decide to breed him of course. They would have to buy a suitable mate first, the Jamesons are selling that little redhead woman they’ve been keeping in the tool shed for years, oh wouldn’t little gingers wobbling around be a treat! Unfortunately she’s getting a little long in the tooth for breeding don’t you think? But babies are so cute, and once you get bored of them they make for excellent compost.

    Oh stop whining, they’re only setting him on fire a little bit. It’s not like any of your property is being damaged.

    Oh, but what’s that, you say? Slavery is illegal now, right? And that is, presumably, your only objection to the situation as described. You would be obligated to call the cops in this instance. Now you wouldn’t have THAT problem at all if slavery were LEGALIZED, WOULD you? This is your principle, unpopular as it may be, they should damn well be allowed to set their legally owned gardener on fire and breed him against his will to the middle-aged redhead in the Jameson’s tool shed and subsequently use their bright-eyed toddlers as garden compost. All good, as long as there’s NO TRESPASSING!

    So let’s go back to the situation that might actually happen. The neighbors have set their cat on fire, and there is a No Trespassing sign on their property line. And I happen to have a bucket and a stream of running water. The most ethical thing I can think of to do would be to fill the bucket, take it and uproot the No Trespassing sign, march into the neighbor’s yard, douse the cat, and brain the neighbor with his no-tresspassing sign. And probably go to jail for assault. That was not the best way to have handled the situation. But I make sure the cat gets to the vet first.

    And if I’d do that for a cat, I would DAMN WELL DO WORSE for the sake of an ACTUAL HUMAN BEING, LET ALONE THOUSANDS, LET ALONE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

    FUCK sovereignity.

  • Gotchaye

    Yeah, fuck sovereignty pretty much says it all.

    I’m not sure Trainer realizes that there are very few people nowadays willing to defend national sovereignty on principled as opposed to prudential grounds.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     “I’m not sure Trainer realizes that there are very few people nowadays
    willing to defend national sovereignty on principled as opposed to
    prudential grounds.”

    I can’t realize that which only exists in the minds of imbeciles.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Your brain is too tiny to understand… popcorn.

  • http://spacecoyotevega.livejournal.com/ vega

    Aahaahaa, yes. Sadly, the enigma that is fluffy overheated kernel corn will forever remain a closed book to me.

    However, you should know that an inability to comprehend grain products is not a common symptom of microencephaly. In fact, it is quite possible for a person to retain an average or above average IQ with less than a tablespoon of brain matter, if the damage has occurred early enough in infancy for critical brain development periods to compensate- though this is more often the case with hydrocephalus than microcephalus.

    It’s also evident that, despite whatever developmental difficulties you’ve identified in me (you diagnostic genius, you) I’m quite capable of arguing circles around you even while blasted out of my mind on Ambien. Additionally, I’ve known parrots with more compassion than you.

    How convenient for you, though, that everyone here who disagrees with you does so because they’re too intellectually deficient to comprehend your arguments, rather than understanding your points perfectly and thinking that every one of them is, to a greater or lesser degree, a load of obscene rubbish.

    I am however willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt. Tell me, exactly what unpopular principle do you adhere to that justifies placing state sovereignty above the sovereignty of its inhabitant human beings over their own bodies, lives and fates? And are you actually anti-war, or is that only in cases where that position caters to pseudo-patriotic wankery?

  • Soylent H

    I was unthinkingly parroting what I had heard in christian churches in my youth in attempt to point out their hypocrisy.  You’re right, it’s an unfair slur to the religious tradition as a whole, but one that is unfortunately common in christianity.  I agree that using Pharisees as shorthand for “church leaders who value rules over compassionate principles” is sloppy and inaccurate, and unfairly demonizes an entire religious tradition over one incident.  It’s not important to me to use the term, I will find another way of saying that.  My complaint is with religious hypocrites in general, not the Jewish tradition in particular.  My apologies.

  • Hilary

    Soylent,

    Our posts crossed – I appreciate your apology to Joshua.  I totally hear you about religious hypocrites, it’s just that I’ve been studying the Gospels and the Pirke Avot side by side recently and you hit a nerve.  If you like I could post what the the Perushim have to say about themselves regarding hypocracy; they’re not spairing of themselves.  There is a difference between calling out religious hypocracy from within an institution you love, which is what I think Jesus was trying to do, versus ascorched earth condemnation of a rival political party, which is what’s recorded in the Gospels. 

    But there is *so*much*blood* on those words, used vindictivly against Jews for so many hundreds of years that we’re still a little defensive. I can recognize using the common cultural shorthand of ‘pharisee’ for ‘religious hypocrite as as not intentionally, deliberately anti-semetic.  Still, you would do well to learn a little about them, from their own POV and their own writings.

    Hilary

  • Soylent H

    Honestly, it was in no way intentionally, or deliberately anti-semitic.  I was using it as cultural short-hand carelessly.  I had never really connected the Pharisees of the gospels to modern Judaism consciously, which is my big oversight.  It is obvious to me now that I don’t know enough about pharisees then or how they evolved into modern judaism to talk about them at all.  I understand why you would be defensive, considering the history of christians demonizing jews especially, and I apologize again for using the term so carelessly.

  • Hilary

    Apology accepted.  If you want to learn more, I recommend “Pirke Avot: Wisdom of the Jewish Sages” by Chaim Stern.  It’s what I’ve got in front of me, and easily findable at Amazon. 

    In a nutshell, of the different groups of Jews back then, the Essenes retreated to the desert didn’t believe in marriage or sex which doesn’t make for a long-lasting group.  The Sadducess were the Temple Priests and colluded with the Romans as a puppet rule, and didn’t last beyond the distruction of the Temple.  The Zealots were violent revolutionaries who killed other Jews not revolutionary enough for them and went down fighting with the Temple’s distruction. That left the Pharisees, who stressed worship, study, and good deeds as replacements for Temple sacrifice.  Because they had the flexibility in the Oral Law, the traditions of interpretation, they were able to face the challenge of surviving after the Temples destruction (70 ce) and the destruction of the nation of Israel (135 to 1948 ce). 

    http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm#Ancient

    Frankly, most Christians today, even most Jews, don’t always make the connection. We study the Pirke Avot, it’s got some awesome sayings, but we call them Sages and Rabbis, not Pharisees.  Like I said, I’ve been studying it a lot lately, and was ready to go off at the first chance. 

    How did a post about a slavery apologist turn into a lecture about 1st century CE Judaism?  Shall we get back to the topic at hand? 

    Hilary

  • Joshua

    How did a post about a slavery apologist turn into a lecture about 1st century CE Judaism?  Shall we get back to the topic at hand?

    You must be new here.

  • Nenya

    How did a post about a slavery apologist turn into a lecture about 1st century CE Judaism?  Shall we get back to the topic at hand? 

    Actually, I much prefer the discussions of great Jewish thinkers to the flocks of teal deer galloping past (poor souls, conscripted into slavery apologetics) in re: the original post; though I must say reading Lincoln and Marx in long form isn’t helping to make the point that they were wrong about the issues under discussion.

    The more I read about Judaism, the more fascinating I find it.  

  • Fusina

     How did a post about a slavery apologist turn into a lecture about
    1st century CE Judaism?  Shall we get back to the topic at hand?

    Why? I now have two free copies of Pirke Avot on my kindle, and the one you suggested coming from Amazon. I am a person of Jewish and German descent–both sides came here before WWII, both sides were “pure” prior to my parents meeting and marrying, and I learned Yiddish from my Dad, Lutheranism from my Mom. I realize that because of parental stuff, I am considered non-jewish, but nevertheless, I am interested in that half of my cultural and religious heritage. Doesn’t help that according to my Dad’s familial lore, there were rabbis in his line, and even worse, Lutheran Pastors in my Mom’s line. So basically, learning and thinking came from both sides of my family. (Not to mention, talking about it–eep!)

    I like learning about other religions. How else can I swipe the good stuff from them to add to my own? I have a friend who doesn’t drive anymore, so I take her to doctor appointments etc… One of her docs is Muslim, so I ask him about stuff. I think if people would just get to know other ways of thinking, that would be good. I don’t tend to proselytize, because I do not have all the answers. But I keep studying, so who knows…  ;-)

    Namaste and Aloha

  • Hilary

    Fusina

    Wow! That’ #$%#! Awesome that you ordered the book, I was just randomly throwing it out there!  And I hear you about mixed families – I’m Russian Jewish on my dad’s side, German Catholic on my mom’s.  Hanukah at home, Christmas at Grandmas – 2x holidays, 2x presents.

    My mother left the CC before she met my dad, but didn’t officially convert until I was 18, after 15 years of being a member at our temple.  For the record, Reform Judaism will recognize paterilinial descent if the person actively decides to choose a Jewish identity.  I know a lot of people who have chosen Judaism, like my mother, my partner (yes I’m also a lesbian – RJ is great on GLBT issues, and feminism), one of our clergy’s husband, a tenor in our choir, the temple president a few years back, several people in the 20’s-30’s young adult group . . . and during Saterday morning Torah study I sit next to a young man from Nigeria who is starting to convert. 

    Oh, and my partner’s parents are both liberal Protestant clergy – I didn’t ask her to convert, it was her choice, but not many Jewish lesbians have a UCC pastor MIL (retired) or a Presbyterian FIL (of blessed memory).  And my Catholic grandparents were good with this!

    I’m not trying to proselytize, just letting you know it’s possible, and that in Reform Judaism you would be accepted as Jewish.  Not so much Orthodoxy, though.  But they won’t consider me Jewish, so meh.  Whatever. “The righteous of all Nations have a place in the world to come.” is the official line about salvation for non-Jews.  If you like I could explain the Talmudic logic for this latter tonight. 

    Thanks again!

    Hilary  

  • Fusina

     I think I chose Christianity to follow–ish–although the funny thing was that my Dad took one look at the pile of stuff my Mom would have had to follow to convert to Judaism and wouldn’t make her, so the rabbi wouldn’t marry them,  she wouldn’t make him convert to Lutheranism, so the pastor there wouldn’t marry them. They got married by the Unitarian minister.

    Where in Russia is your Dad from? My Dad’s family, I found out after a lot of investigation, is from Ukraine, which finally explained my color choices–I _LIKE_ when colors vibrate next to each other–the name of the town, and this is phonetically spelled as I’ve never seen it written, was Glitziana–or at least, that is how they pronounced it. I believe that Galiciana is a town in the Ukraine, and would possibly be the place. I met some Ukrainians and asked, and when I gave the place name as I had learned it, they recognized it as a usual thing. Also, it is close enough to the border that it has been part of Poland and part of the Austr0-Hungarian Empire, which were the other two things I knew about it.

    What I do know is that I inherited the love of discussing things into insanity from my ancestors. Also embroidering anything I can.

    Hilary

    “The righteous of all Nations have a place in the world to come.” is the official line about salvation for non-Jews. 

    I like this. Could be applied to any religious group too. And yes, I love to discuss/argue stuff–it is fun!

  • Hilary

    Fusina

    My fathers family is from Kiev, and generally the Polish/German border area.  Thank G-d they came to US by 1910.  Maybe that’s why my favorite color palate is rich jewel tones, I hadn’t thought of that.  I can discuss interesting things to insanity, just don’t bore me with celebrity fluff or fashion.  I get obsesive about making thick, double yarned hats and scarves in dark, adult, rich colors for winter and give them away to homeless shelters. 

    My parents had to elope and got married by a Justice of the Peace.  My father’s grandparents told him he was told he was going to hell for marrying a shiksa, and my mothers grandfather told her she was going to hell for haveing sex with a circumsised penis.  My mother has commented on the irony that because of religion, she and my dad could have a civil marriage but not a religious wedding, while I had a religious wedding but can’t get a civil marriage.  

    If you or anybody else reading this is interested in the Talmudic prooftexting for universal salvation, I would be happy to explain it here.  It really is prooftexting, pulling seperate verses together to uphold a position, and is a fascinating contrast to the Christian prooftexting to support slavery, to somehow tie it in with the original topic.  But it wouldn’t be a quick post I could write off the cuff, and I’m not a troll to highjack a thread for my own soap box. So if you’re interested, anybody out there, please ask.  Otherwise, please google ‘Pirke Avot’ and read the words of the Pharisees for themselves. 

  • Fusina

     I’d love to continue discussing, but possibly not here–my email is fusina at verizon dot net.

    But yes, rich jewel tones are the awesomest. I don’t knit, but I do embroidery and other things with floss and fiber–I love silk and wool because they do take dye so very very well.

  • http://twitter.com/Didaktylos Paul Hantusch

    If I might make a suggestion – there is a distinction between Pharisee and pharisee just as there is between Philistine and philistine (and indeed Lesbian and lesbian).

  • Joshua

    Cool with me.

    I think if Jesus was preaching today, he’d eagerly use pretty much the same rants about hypocritical Christian leaders, with perfect justification IMHO.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    Or politicians who twist laws and deny facts to pervert context and establish despotic empires, as even the Prophet Samuel forewarned in I Samuel 8, with consequences lasting to date including 9/11.

  • Matri

    I think if Jesus was preaching today, he’d eagerly use pretty much the
    same rants about hypocritical Christian leaders, with perfect
    justification IMHO.

    And exactly 12 hours after that, he would be waterboarded. And Fox News will re-assure us that the hippy Socialist Muslim Atheist terrorist has been taken care of, go back to shopping.

  • erikagillian

    Oh, so thank your lucky stars, you’ve got protection
    Walk the line and never mind the cost
    And don’t wonder who them lawmen was protectin’
    When they nailed the Savior to the cross

    ‘Cause the law is for protection of the people
    Rules are rules and any fool can see
    We don’t need no riddle speakin’ prophets
    Scarin’ decent folks like you and me, no siree

    Kris Kristofferson, The Law is for Protection of the People

  • Tricksterson

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Gospels are accurate as to his personality I can only imagine his reaction upon attending a megachurch and hearing the “prosperity Gospel”.

  • D9000

    Do they have money-changers in megachurches?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    ” I agree that using Pharisees as shorthand for “church leaders who value
    rules over compassionate principles” is sloppy and inaccurate,”

    More like the letter of the law over the spirit.
    That’s a well-known principle in modern law in regards to policy-argument vs. procedural bureaucratic arguments which clearly oppose a law’s original intent.

  • Hilary

    Joshua – Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    Let’s see, what would it be like to follow the teaching of the Pharisees, the REAL Pharisees, the Perushim, who still are quoted in living synegoges today.  Quoted and loved for things like this:

    “What is hateful to yourself, do not do to others.  The rest [of the Law] is commentary, go and study” Hillel, Talmud Shabbat 31a

    “The world is based on three things: on Torah, on worship, on deeds of lovingkindness.” Simeon the Righteous, Avot 1:2

    “Rabbi Joshua, seeing the great Temple in ruins, lamented that the place where Israel found atonment for her sins was laid to waste.  Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai comforted him, saying ‘We have a means of atonement equally good – deeds of loving kindness. Hosea 6:6 It is steadfast love I require, not sacrifice.’ ” Avot deRabbi Natan

    “Rabbi Akiva said, ‘The greatest principle of the Torah is this: Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18)  How much did G-d love us to make us in His image, how much more did He love us to let us know we are created in the divine image!”  BTW, R. Akiva was tortured to death by the Romans in 135 CE.

    “Do not be like servents who serve their master in hope of reward – rather be like servents who serve their master without thought of reward” Antigonus of Socho, Avot 1:3. IE do what is right because it is what needs to be done, not because of a hope for heveanly reward.

    “Find yourself a teacher, get yourself a friend, and give everybody the benefit of the doubt.” Joshua ben Perachiah, Avot 1:6

    “Be a disciple of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, love people and drawing them near the Torah.”  Hillel, Avot 1:12

    ‘The world is sustained by three things: by justice, by truth, and by peace.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel, Avot 1:18

    “Be careful in reciting the Shema and Prayers.  When you pray, never let your prayer be routine but let it be a plea for compassion and grace from the Blessed Presence, as it is said ‘For G-d is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in loving kindness, and repents of the evil (Joel 2:13).” Rabbi Simeon, Avot 2:13

    Two more –

    For Tikkun Olam, the redemptive work of repareing our broken world: “You are not expected to complete the task, but neither are you free to abandon it.”  Rabbi Tarfon, Avot 2:16

    “The sword comes into the world because of justice delayed and justice denied.” Avot 5:8.

    I have a copy of the Pirke Avot, the Wisdom of the Jewish Sages, and I am not afraid to use it.  Soylent, THESE are the words of the Jewish leaders during the 1st and 2nd centures CE, and codified the same time as the Gospels.  This is a SMALL SAMPLE of their wisdom and ethics.  You can find a copy of the Pirke Avot at any reasonable large bookstore, and it is very easy to find a copy on line.

    We would ALL do well to live as Pharisees, and I am proud to be their spiritual descendant.

    As for this guy Loy Mauch . . . Fred does a good job shining light on cockroaches. Knowing they are there is the first step in protecting yourself and decontaminating the kitchen.

    Hilary 

  • Hilary

    Crap.  I can’t spell – I know it’s synagogue, not synegoge. 
    Sorry ’bout that.

    Hilary

  • http://twitter.com/shay_guy Shay Guy

    That’s all right, neither can USY — the first printing of the new version of B’kol Echad spelled it “synagouge” on the spine.

  • Hilary

    That’s all right, neither can USY — the first printing of the new version of B’kol Echad spelled it “synagouge” on the spine.

    You have no idea how much better that makes me feel. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     “You mean, worshipping in synagogues, preferring study over animal
    sacrifice, regarding the Old Testament prophets as scripture,
    understanding scripture by means of reasoned and opinionated debate,
    saying things like
    that kind of thing?

    Jesus’ rants about Pharisees by themselves don’t give an accurate
    picture even of Jesus’ impression of their movement, let alone an
    accurate impression of the movement itself. Until you study the
    religious context of the time, it’s not evident how much he drew from
    them.”

    Well then you’d better get started, since even the phrase “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow” is a detraction of the actual phrase “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” alluding to the parable of the Good Samaritan vs. the two Jewish Priests who left their own fellow to die– i.e. the premise that God’s work is not one of mere omission from sin for only the Jews. but sacrifice of self for all persons.

    But if you think you know more than Jesus, then you’re wrong.

  • Joshua

     “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow” is a detraction of the actual phrase “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,”

    Wrong way around. Rabbi Hillel said it first, he died when Jesus was only about 14. Jesus paraphrased him.

    But if you think you know more than Jesus, then you’re wrong.

    I never asserted I knew more than Jesus, just that I have tried to actually understand what he was talking about and where he got his ideas from.

    Well worth doing. I recommend it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     >”Wrong way around. Rabbi Hillel said it first, he died when Jesus was only about 14. Jesus paraphrased him.”

    I didn’t attribute it to Jesus, clown. I said that was the actual phrase.
    Read before you write.

  • Münchner Kindl

     

    Using the word Pharisee as a derogatory term is anti-Semitic, as all modern Judaism is descended from them. Please stop it.

    This is the first time I’ve heard that – I have often heard that the Pharisees were different than portrayed.

    However, today, in Christian culture, Pharisee =! modern Judaism or even the historically accurate term; it refers to the hypocritical person who confessess to practice a religion but is concerned more with the letter than the spirit of the law.

    This is most obvious in the little joke about a guy who hears the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector in the NT, and says “Thank God I’m not a Pharisee!” Missing the point completly (About not praising yourself and how righteous you are compared to others because God sees your heart and judges you).

    Modern Judaism may be descended from the teachings and methods of the historic Pharisees, but it’s not called “Phariseanism” or similar, it’s called “Judaism”.

    When people want to diss Judaism, they say so. And I bet that the problem of “Pharisees” = hypocritical, jugdemental people also exists in modern Judaism, because it exists in every religion and in secular context as well.

    You can try to reclaim the word Pharisee according to correct historical context, but it will be an uphill battle against established current usage.

  • Nenya

    I feel like if actual Jewish people are saying, “Please stop that, it’s hurtful,” and pointing out how using “Pharisee” in a derogatory fashion has contributed to anti-Semitism over the years…we non-Jews ought to listen. It’s only good manners. 

  • Joshua

    However, today, in Christian culture, Pharisee =! modern Judaism or even the historically accurate term; it refers to the hypocritical person who confessess to practice a religion but is concerned more with the letter than the spirit of the law.

    I dispute that. I’ve been part of Christian culture since I was a child. Pharisee has always predominately meant the Jewish subgroup mentioned in a number of places in the New Testament.

    I have not often heard people refer to modern hypocrites as Pharisees.

    You can try to reclaim the word Pharisee according to correct historical context, but it will be an uphill battle against established current usage.

    I just don’t think there’s anything to reclaim: the word primarily exists in that historical context. To the extent that Christians use the word for hypocrites, that’s not just historically inaccurate, it’s biblically inaccurate. Paul the Apostle was proud of being taught at the feet of Gamaliel, who is given quite a positive writeup in Acts 5. Jesus’ paraphrase of one of the famous sayings of a founder of the movement was a central part of his teaching. We see Jesus engaging in the Pharisaical tradition of argument and discussion about the Torah and tradition in a number of places. Some of his early followers are described as Pharisees.

    So I just think the usage is silly. As well as offensive to the current inheritors of that movement, although maybe that’s their battle to fight rather than mine.

  • Münchner Kindl

     I’ve heard the words “like a Pharisee” used quite often contemporarily, esp. in connection with the tale Jesus told of the two men who go up to the temple, one a pharisee, one a tax-collector, the pharisee praising himself for keeping the laws, the tax-collector beating his breast “I’m a sinner, have mercy, God” and God being pleased with the tax-collector’s humility and not with the boasting of the Pharisee.

    Maybe it’s a language/ culture thing – English has for example turned the word for the historic group “Zealots” into a modern word meaning people who are fanatic about something, whereas e.g. German the word “Zeloten” only refers to the historic group, and the modern meaning is “Eiferer” (a translation of what the hebrew word means).

    To the extent that Christians use the word for hypocrites, that’s not just  historically inaccurate, it’s biblically inaccurate

    If the main reference is the above parable of Jesus, then it’s biblically accurate. Jesus in the evangeliums didn’t condem the pharisees because their approach was wrong, he rebuked them when they put the letter of the law higher than the spirit of the law = helping people (like Rabbi Hillel). But because he addressed them in the plural, it’s easy to mistake for a condemnation of the whole group.

    Still, because the whole conflict between the pharisee approach and the sadducee approach has not been written down in the NT, we only know about it from religion class, not from the text itself. Hence there is no condemnation of pharisees doing it wrong compared to anything, but rather “reading scripture by the letter instead of spirit is wrong.”

  • Tricksterson

    The whole Pharisee thing was political.  They were theancestors of the rabbinical movement that replaced the priesthood as the arbiters of things religious and legal in the Jewish community and thus Christianity’s biggest competitors within the Jewish world.  It was basically Wal-Mart badmouthing Target.

  • The_L1985

    Unfortunately, because Jesus harped on the Pharisees, and because so many Americans are completely ignorant about Judaism, the word “Pharisee” is synonymous with “self-serving hypocrite” to all too many people.

  • Hilary

    I know.  I’m learning the fine nuance of some of this language, and usually I can see it in context.  Last night Soylents post caught me in a bad mood and I let loose with some info – like don’t make me get Talmudic on you!  But I did completely accept his apology, I know the difference between lack of information from lack of exposure, and true hostile ignorance.  And hey, some people learned a little more then they would have otherwise, and are a little less ignorant from lack of exposure.  If a post started about a slavery apologist can increase a little more positive knowledge about Judasim, that’s slacktivism at its best.

    And regardless of the term we use, self-serving hypocrites always need to be challenged and taken down.

    Hilary

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    Jesus condemned the Scribes and Pharisees as “hypocrites,” since the twisted and cherry-picked the letter of the law to their own ends against its original intent; however our Lincoln-lovers and Confederacy-haters today do likewise in condemning deprivations of liberty of which they personally disapprove, while praising and boasting of their pet versions like conscription, jury-service, compulsory school-attendance and income-taxes.

    Nothing worse than evil with 2 faces.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    Nothing worse than evil with 2 faces.

    In your opinion, which of the following caused more suffering?
    a) chattel slavery
    b) jury service
    c) compulsory school attendance
    d) income tax
    e) none; the suffering they caused is roughly equivalent

    In your opinion, is it always hypocritical to treat things that cause more suffering differently from things that cause less suffering?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    That’s possibly not the stupidest question I’ve ever seen.
    Possibly.

  • Morilore

    Jesus condemned the Scribes and Pharisees as “hypocrites,” since the twisted and cherry-picked the letter of the law to their own ends against its original intent; however our Lincoln-lovers and Confederacy-haters today do likewise in condemning deprivations of liberty of which they personally disapprove, while praising and boasting of their pet versions like conscription, jury-service, compulsory school-attendance and income-taxes.

    Jury-service?  Compulsory school attendance?  Income taxes?

    These are somehow comparable to human chattel slavery?

    Are you thirteen years old or something?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Well that would put me leagues above you, but no.
    I also like the way you cutely left out conscription.
    If ignorance is bliss, this website is Heaven.

  • Joshua

    Yeah! Down with school! I reed okay muchly! Jury service: worse than working in the cotton fields! And the pay is worse! All those conscripted soldiers in Afghanistan! Oh, the humanity! All tax is Satan!

    You go! Tell it like it is.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Ask not for whom the bull trolls…..

  • Katie

     Yes, because having to go down to the court house and sit in a room for a few hours, for which you get paid, is EXACTLY LIKE being beaten at your owner’s whim.

    Seriously, stop digging.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    I see you like missing the point too.

  • gocart mozart

    “however our Lincoln-lovers and Confederacy-haters today do likewise in condemning deprivations of liberty of which they personally disapprove, while praising and boasting of their pet versions like conscription, jury-service, compulsory school-attendance and income-taxes.”

    Wow!  You left out compulsory red light motor vehicle stopping and mandatory genital covering in public.  None of which were explicitly authorized in the Constitution.  You pretentious hack.

  • Tricksterson

    No time machine.  Some people’s work is simply so true that it is for all the ages.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Someone check, are we sure Twain didn’t have a time machine?

    Twain lived at the mid-early part of the Modern Era. Like Harriet Tubman, Abraham Lincoln, and many others of his era (and very very many in other countries), what he said could easily be said today. He was at the forefront of his time, but not ahead of it. We’re still in it. Mostly spinning our wheels. 

  • DoctorChimRichalds

    Well, give him points for consistency, at least.

  • hidden_urchin

    Espousing, and preferably having, views such as Mauch’s should be political suicide. It says unlovely things about America that this is not yet so.

  • http://twitter.com/AbelUndercity Abel Undercity

    Twain has always been my favorite student of the human (and in particular the American) condition.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Yeah, takes a lot of guts to flatter the emperor’s robe and curse the vanquished.
    Vae victus!

  • Lori

     

    Yeah, takes a lot of guts to flatter the emperor’s robe and curse the vanquished. 

    Being vanquished doesn’t automatically make one right or sympathetic. Some of the vanquished deserve to be “cursed”.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It’s times like this I wish the alternate-timeline Hannibal Hamlin had succeeded Lincoln.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    And women don’t always hate being raped… where do you live?

  • http://twitter.com/Didaktylos Paul Hantusch

    If you’re going to quote, do try and quote accurately.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    This country already lionizes Wehrmacht leaders. They go by the names of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, etc.

    *blink*

    *blink*

    Woooooooooooooow.

    Someone is desperate to completely rewrite the Civil War.

  • Ben English

     My favorite part is when he calls them Marxists.

  • Albanaeon

     Yep, that darn Marx and his time machine…

    Head shake.

  • Joshua

    He kept it hidden in his beard.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    You don’t really expect me to hear it rattle all the way over here do you?
    If you can’t scroll up and read, I’m not going to re–post it for ouur benefit.

  • David Newgreen

     To be fair, Marx did wrote extensively about the Civil War while it was ongoing, and was a strong supporter of the Union and Lincoln.

    Of course, that doesn’t make the Union generals Marxists any more than Tsar Alexander’s support of the North made them monarchists… it’s just that the Southern slave system was so repulsive that pretty much every outside observer condemned it, regardless of ideology.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     ” To be fair, Marx did wrote extensively about the Civil War while it was
    ongoing, and was a strong supporter of the Union and Lincoln.”

    Finally someone intelligent.
    As I stated, Marx was a Lincolnist- or so he thought, since in reality Lincoln was a fascist imperialist who ruled through force and censorship, presenting Crony-Capitalism as a free-market in order to fool the opposition, and Marx was so dim that he believed it.
    The ensuing economic devastation and disparity were gobbled up by Marx and his ilk as “proof” of his socialist theories, fueling the impetus behind the revolution that followed once Lincoln’s empire went global in 1914.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    Actually Marx was a Lincolnist:

    “Sir:

    We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a
    large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword
    of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death
    to Slavery.

    From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen
    of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the
    destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the
    dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts
    should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp
    of the slave driver?

    When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for
    the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed
    Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one
    great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration
    of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European
    revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution,
    with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding “the ideas entertained
    at the time of the formation of the old constitution”, and maintained slavery
    to be “a beneficent institution”, indeed, the old solution of the great
    problem of “the relation of capital to labor”, and cynically proclaimed
    property in man “the cornerstone of the new edifice” — then the working
    classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship
    of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning,
    that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general
    holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor,
    with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake
    in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere
    they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton
    crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters
    — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to
    the good cause.

    While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North,
    allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered
    and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative
    of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master,
    they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their
    European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier
    to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

    The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of
    Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so
    the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider
    it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln,
    the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through
    the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction
    of a social world.

    “Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association, the
    Central Council:

    …Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany….”

    –Address of the International Working Men’s Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

    Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
    January 28, 1865

  • Morilore

    Good for Karl Marx!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    And don’t forget Adolf Hitelr when he wrote that” the American states could never have have had any sovereignty of their own..” despite this being the plain fact of law nd history.

  • Tricksterson

    Well, some of the things Lincoln said were close enough that Harry Turtledove made him the founding father of the American Socialist Party in his Confederacy series.  Not that you’ll ever hear the Republicans quoting those lines.

  • depizan

     Yeah.  Does leave one pretty speechless.

    The guy seems to have formed his own unique reality.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    Well they all lived by the following principles, as noted in Lincoln’s writing:

    “By
    a federated state we understand a league of sovereign states
    which band together of their own free will, on the strength
    of their sovereignty; ceding to the totality that share of
    their particular sovereign rights which makes possible and
    guarantees the existence of the common federation.

    In
    practice this theoretical formulation does not apply entirely
    to any of the federated states existing on earth today. Least
    of all to the American Union, where, as far as the overwhelming
    part of the individual states are concerned, there can be
    no question of any original sovereignty, but, on the contrary,
    many of them were sketched into the total area of the Union
    in the course of time, so to speak. Hence in the individual
    states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller
    and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative
    reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which
    previously had not and could not have possessed any state
    sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that
    had formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which
    formed a great part of such so-called states. The very extensive
    special rights granted, or rather assigned, to the individual
    territories are not only in keeping with the whole character
    of this federation of states, but above all with the size
    of its area, its spatial dimensions which approach the scope
    of a continent. And so, as far as the states of the American
    Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty,
    but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed
    rights, or better, perhaps, privileges.

    “It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the
    present movement at the South be called “secession” or “rebellion.” The
    movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they
    knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude
    by any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people
    possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order,
    and as much pride in and reverence for the history and Government of
    their common country as any other civilized and patriotic people. They
    knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these
    strong and noble sentiments. Accordingly, they commenced by an insidious
    debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism,
    which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps through all
    the incidents to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism
    itself is that any State of the Union may consistently with the National
    Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully , withdraw from the
    Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State. The
    little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just
    cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to
    merit any notice.

    With rebellion thus sugar coated they have been drugging the public
    mind of their section for more than thirty years, and until at length
    they have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against
    the Government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the
    farcical pretense of taking their State out of the Union who could have
    been brought to no such thing the day before .

    This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from
    the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy
    pertaining to a State—to each State of our Federal Union. Our States
    have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union
    by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the
    Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast
    off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into
    the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and
    even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State.
    The new ones only took the designation of States on coming into the
    Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the
    Declaration of Independence. Therein the “United Colonies” were declared
    to be “free and independent States;” but even then the object plainly
    was not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union,
    but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual
    action before, at the time, and afterwards abundantly show. The express
    plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen in the
    Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be
    perpetual is most conclusive. Having never been States, either in
    substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical
    omnipotence of “State rights,” asserting a claim of power to lawfully
    destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the “sovereignty” of the
    States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as
    is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a “sovereignty”
    in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it
    “a political community without a political superior”? Tested by this, no
    one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas
    gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she
    acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and
    treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to
    be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status in
    the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this,
    they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union, and not
    themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By
    conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of
    independence and liberty it has. The Union is older than any of the
    States, and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally some
    dependent colonies made the Union, and in turn the Union threw off their
    old dependence for them and made them States, such as they are. Not one
    of them ever had a State constitution independent of the Union. Of
    course it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their
    constitutions before they entered the Union, nevertheless dependent upon
    and preparatory to coming into the Union.

    Unquestionably the States have the powers and rights reserved to them
    in and by the National Constitution; but among these surely are not
    included all conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive, but
    at most such only as were known in the world at the time as
    governmental powers; and certainly a power to destroy the Government
    itself had never been known as a governmental—as a merely administrative
    power. This relative matter of national power and State rights, as a
    principle, is no other than the principle of generality and locality .
    Whatever concerns the whole should be confided to the whole—to the
    General Government—while whatever concerns only the State should be left
    exclusively to the State. This is all there is of original principle
    about it. Whether the National Constitution in defining boundaries
    between the two has applied the principle with exact accuracy is not to
    be questioned. We are all bound by that defining without question.”
    ——————————-

    Nevermind the following statements by the Founders Jefferson and Madison:

    “Resolved, That the several States
    composing, the United States of America, are not united on the
    principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but
    that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the
    United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general
    government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain
    definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of
    right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general
    government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative,
    void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a
    State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself,
    the other party: that the government created by this compact was not
    made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated
    to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the
    Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other
    cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an
    equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode
    and measure of redress.”

    “The other position involved in this branch of the resolution,
    namely, “that the states are parties to the Constitution,”
    or compact, is, in the judgment of the committee,
    equally free from objection. It is indeed true that the term
    “states” is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes
    in different senses, according to the subject to which it is
    applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of
    territory occupied by the political societies within each;
    sometimes the particular governments established by those
    societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those
    particular governments; and lastly, it means the people
    composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign
    capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection
    of language admitted less diversity in the signification
    of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by
    it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty
    from the different applications. In the present instance,
    whatever different construction of the term “states,” in the
    resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur
    in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitution
    was submitted to the “states;” in that sense the
    “states” ratified it; and in that sense of the term “states,”
    they are consequently parties to the compact from which
    the powers of the federal government result. … However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department
    is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms
    of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort
    must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities
    of the other departments of the government; not
    in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional
    compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments,
    hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis,
    the delegation of judicial power would annul the
    authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department
    with the others in usurped powers, might subvert
    forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful
    remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to
    preserve. ”

    But as William Feather wrote, a single fact can spoil a most interesting argument.
    And the first quote above is from “Mein Kampf.”

  • Morilore

    boring wall of text

    did not read lol

  • Turcano

     No no no, the traditional response is “tl;dr.”

  • http://politicsproseotherthings.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel

     And yet in that entire wall of text you somehow failed to address my original point: If you’re so het up about state sovereignty, why do you visibly not give a shit about stuff like the Dred Scott decision?

    I must admit, the question is rather rhetorical by this point. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    That’s why I didn’t answer it.

  • Damanoid

    Loy March desperately needs to be horse-whipped.

  • Damanoid

     Ahem.  Loy Mauch desperately needs to be horse-whipped.

    What the hell kind of name is “Loy Mauch,” anyway?  What alien dimension is he from?  Was he summoned here by accident?  Did his swamp ancestors breed with each other so unhealthily that even their names became twisted and deformed?

  • everstar

     As my favorite Marxist said, “I’d horsewhip you if I had a horse.”

    As for Mr. Mauch, the best I can do is a disgusted headshake now and primal scream therapy later.

  • TheFaithfulStone

    Hey, now.  Mauch is from the hills.  Swamp folk’d be dead in what passes for ground if they do much talking like that.

  • Damanoid

    I was, of course, referring to hill swamps.  Very common terrain feature in dimensions of chaos and torment.

    Legend has it that if you say his name three times without laughing in front of a mirror, Loy Mauch will appear and attempt to use his agonizer on you.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Yep, he doesn’t seem to undertand that  if you say anything politically incorrect then you’re wrong no matter what.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     It beats “Barack Obama.”

  • Morilore

    Serious question: are you from Stormfront?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Are you a pedophhile of little girls?

  • Joshua

    Truthfully, I think your earlier material was more entertaining. And better spelled.

  • Damanoid

    Yeah, I can imagine how “Barack Obama” would be a problem for you.

    If it makes you feel any better: when he enslaves you and sells you to Sudan, I’ll reluctantly accept your desire to honor national sovereignty over the rights of human property.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    Even I can’t fathom your stupidity.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ mistformsquirrel

    So lemee get this straight:

    The leaders of the Union in the US Civil War… were tied to a movement that didn’t begin until 60 odd years later?  And were ALSO communists, another movement that hadn’t really come into it’s own for another 50 years or so?  Not to mention the obvious fact that Fascism and Communism are *polar opposites* – not that that’s stopped these idiots before.

    But seriously this is a spectacular breed of stupidity.  One has to deliberately try to become that dumb.  That there are enough people who’ve deliberately done so in order for this cretin to have ever been elected to office in this country is beyond me to accept or comprehend.

  • vsm

    I think it’s  inaccurate to say Communism didn’t come on to its own until the beginning of the 20th century. The First Internationale was founded in the 1860’s, and the Paris Commune briefly took over Paris in 1871. Marx really was a fervent supporter of the Union, and even wrote Lincoln a letter of congratulation on his re-election. He got a letter back, too: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     >”I think it’s  inaccurate to say Communism didn’t come on to its own until the beginning of the 20th century.”

    Technically it is, since it didn’t have the opportunity until the US-Britain alliance provided it by forcing the Czar to remain involved in the war at the expense of domestic security.
    However of course you’re right, since it had been brewing for over 60 years since the time of Marx. As I stated above, Lincoln’s regime provide faux “evidence” for Marx’s theories of free markets being evil, when in reality the Lincoln-empire’s markets were anything but free.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    “So lemee get this straight:

    The leaders of the Union in the US Civil War… were tied to a movement that didn’t begin until 60 odd years later? ”

    Perhaps you haven’t considered ties can operate in both directions, i.e. the later movement can be tied to the earlier in the sequence of causation.

    Though I’m not certain what movement you’re referencing, since Marxism did not begin after Lincoln’s reign but DURING it, as I’ve documented above.

  • Münchner Kindl

     

    The leaders of the Union in the US Civil War… were tied to a movement that didn’t begin until 60 odd years later?

    No, worse: Wehrmacht was the name for the simple German Army during the time of the third Reich. While it was used by the Nazis during WWII, (and while some units did commit war crimes – like other armys at other wars, too), the Wehrmacht itself is not part of Nazi ideology or fascism, and most members of the Wehrmacht were simply soldiers called up on draft to defend their families from the Russians about to rape them, not to advance Nazi ideology.

    And many of the Generals and officers still were of nobility (back from the Reichswehr days) and opposed to Hitler – see the several assassination attempts by Stauffenberg and his circle or by von Gersdorff (they did have easier access to weapons, bombs and Hitler than the average guy, which did help, and those who served on the Eastern front saw directly the massacres by the Nazi-Units =SS against Jews and civilians, which was often a factor pushing the decision to break their oath of loyalty to Hitler).

    So not only is the comparision “Northern Generals = Nazi” dumb, it’s also wrong because “Wehrmacht =! Nazis”.

  • Joshua

    So not only is the comparision “Northern Generals = Nazi” dumb, it’s also wrong because “Wehrmacht =! Nazis”.

    So, about as inaccurate as calling me a Yankee revisionist. Ha ha. A better person than him once called me a paid shill of Microsoft.

    English speakers just have trouble remembering what SS stands for, I think.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ mistformsquirrel

    Hehe, while I didn’t indicate it in the post, I’m actually aware of that. (^_^) I’m a bit of a history buff; and WWII is an area of specialty for me.  That said, I didn’t indicate anything like that in the post so it’s understandable to assume otherwise.

    I was just addressing the obvious intent of Mr. Mauch’s stupidity – ie: “I don’t like them so they must be Nazis” (Also Communists… because logic.) thing.

    You’re absolutely right though.  (I almost had written out a digression on that exact thing lol; though maybe not so detailed – but I figured I was getting off topic and I do love to ramble.)

  • Tricksterson

    The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848.  Das Kapital wasn’t published until 1867 but Marx was working on it during the time of the Civil War.

  • Nirrti

    If Loy Mauch thinks slavery’s so darn peachy and wants it back, all I can say in response is “You first”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Did he actually say he wants slavery back?

  • Joshua

    I suppose I should mention at this point that despite my name, I’m not Jewish ethnically or (obviously if you have been reading my comments) religiously.

    In my post above, I’m playing the part of Terry Pratchett’s Campaign for Equal Heights.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    It’s one thing to praise slavery, it’s another to say it’s not a crime against humanity that we’ve made it out to be– particularly in a country where federal law has enslaved more free men under military conscription for wars to expand empires,  than ever under chattel slavery.  This is quite a convenient hypocrisy by which scoundrels take refuge in patriotism, with the unbridled arrogance of trumpeting freedom from their high-borne elephantine snouts.
    Indeed, many nations practice slavery or its equivalent outright, and neither the United States or Untied Nations utters a peep– on the contrary, Sudan is the UN’s appointed leader of its Human Rights Council, and yet it practices slavery to date. However would not be “defending slavery” to rail against the suggestion of invading Sudan to free their slaves, but simply respecting the fundamental concept of national sovereignty vs. crusading imperialism.

    Likewise, secession by a sovereign state is not “treason,” any more than if Mexico were to secede from NAFTA– contrary to the revisionist history of the post-Lincoln regime whereby Lincoln claimed that a mystical nameless nation named “The Union” sprang into being even while the states were still colonies of the nation of Great Britain– and equally derived national authority over them by Lincoln’s absurd gobbledegook claimes regarding the simple terms of military alliance between the thirteen free, sovereign and independent states they declared themselves to be.

    Thus, armchair court-historians may get a sneer-gasm from stuffing their shirts with well-worn lies of arroance, but they are simply proving themselves nth-generation useful idiots who insist on the modern-day equivalent of mocking Copernical heliocentrism while flattering the emperor’s robe.

  • http://politicsproseotherthings.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel

    Have you read the Dred Scott decision?

    The South cheered it, and nary a fuck was given for state sovereignty with that decision.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    I see you’re not interested in the facts.

  • http://politicsproseotherthings.blogspot.com/ Nathaniel

     No, I’m saying that the south and by extension you are full of shit when you claim to care about such things.

  • EllieMurasaki

    If state sovereignty is the be-all end-all, then the Dred Scott decision should have respected the laws of the state that said every slave entering its borders was automatically free. It did not. How is this not relevant to your discussion of slavery and state sovereignty?

  • Joshua

    Thank you, Trainer, it’s for comments like yours that I read the internet. Full-on, rabid ranting that barely makes sense.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    And   ad hominem name-calling  like yours from those who who can’t manage an intelligent response.

  • Joshua

    Nah, I was being sincere, I got genuine entertainment from your post.

    I am pretty much here for the freak show. I especially applaud this:

    If you truly believe that statism varies according to operating policy of the Leviathan, and is not identical via the common principle of the statist collective itself, in which individual sovereignty is non-existent apart from the concept of collective plebiscite; this is distinguished from the core precept of democracy,i.e.in which the state is the simple subordinate delegation of individual will, and resultant inalienability of the individual.

    It’s fantastic. If you read it carefully, it actually starts to make some kind of point. Do some more HTML!

  • Joshua

    If you run the quoted text above through the dissociated press implementation at http://csiuo.com/dissociatedpress/, you get:

    Will, and resultant inalienability the common principle of the state is the of democracy,i.e.in which the the statist collective itself, believe that statism varies the common principle of according to operating policy is not identical via precept of democracy,i.e.in which resultant inalienability of the is not identical via precept of democracy,i.e.in which core precept of democracy,i.e.in from the core precept democracy,i.e.in which the state not identical via the is the simple subordinate is distinguished from the the state is the which the state is operating policy of the subordinate delegation of individual you truly believe that of democracy,i.e.in which the will, and resultant inalienability will, and resultant inalienability non-existent apart from the the common principle of plebiscite; this is distinguished policy of the Leviathan, is not identical via will, and resultant inalienability resultant inalienability of the inalienability of the individual.  Common principle of the truly believe that statism the common principle of in which individual sovereignty identical via the common believe that statism varies collective itself, in which non-existent apart from the which the state is to operating policy of the Leviathan, and is the concept of collective collective itself, in which truly believe that statism Leviathan, and is not the Leviathan, and is state is the simple of the statist collective that statism varies according the simple subordinate delegation according to operating policy you truly believe that which the state is plebiscite; this is distinguished common principle of the itself, in which individual the state is the concept of collective plebiscite; of the statist collective democracy,i.e.in which the state concept of collective plebiscite; distinguished from the core the state is the subordinate delegation of individual varies according to operating that statism varies according individual will, and resultant non-existent apart from the of collective plebiscite; this core precept of democracy,i.e.in this is distinguished from which the state is identical via the common believe that statism varies is the simple subordinate 

  • Turcano

    Mother of Christ.  This is what trying to read Hegel must feel like.

  • Joshua

    The emacs text editor actually has a built-in function to do this to text. Sometimes open source software goes in strange directions, since it consists largely of stuff programmers happened to get a kick out of in an idle moment.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    emacs is my go-to C IDE when I want to make nicely formatted source code. :D Its indentation features are nothing short of sheer black magic. :D

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    > Nah, I was being sincere, I got genuine entertainment from your post.

    Goodbye, troll.

  • Joshua

    See you later. Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out.

  • Trixie_Belden

    Yeah, How about that Fugitive Slave Act?  The south did not give a flying f*ck if you were a citizen of another “sovereign state” that did not allow  slavery – if you helped a slave in your own “sovereign state” escape from bondage southerners were perfectly content to see the hammer of federal law brought down on you with serious jail terms and huge fines.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     I see that your reach has exceeded your grasp of the facts in this situation… I see this tired argument often, though.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     @yahoo-IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4:disqus : Gosh, you sure do write purty.

    Four notes.

    1. Even if it’s true that the number of people conscripted to serve in wars can be meaningfully compared to the number of people indentured to serve in chattel slavery (which you’ve made no attempt to demonstrate, merely referred to), that’s not an argument in favor of chattel slavery. It’s an argument against military conscription.

    2. I agree that chattel slavery in other countries is bad, too.

    3. You don’t quite come out and say this, but reading between the lines you seem to be suggesting that the political and economic relationship between the Northern and Southern U.S. states pre-Civil War is analogous to the relationship between Germany and Poland pre-WorldWar. This seems absurd on its face.

    4. You may be right that the Union manufactured a level of outrage against Confederate slavery that would not have naturally emerged from the white population, and did so in part to justify its desire to avoid the secession of the Southern states, much as the U.S. in 2000 manufactured a level of outrage against “Islamofascist terrorism” to justify military activity it wanted to pursue for other reasons. That doesn’t make chattel slavery (or terrorism) any better a practice.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     1. I’ll never understand those who seriouly discern military conscription as somehow morally superior to chattel slavery. I’m sorry, you just have a missing chromosome… or twelve. Saying that it’s wrong to purchase slaves, but ok to enslave free men, is simply mutant-logic I can’t comprehend without a lobotomy.

    2. But the US gets all the blame for slavery, simply because the American empire  stands only on the strawman argument that anyone who questions its authority is “pro-slavery.”  It’s not about reason, but simply power.

    3.  So you agree with Hitler’s claims in Mein Kampf, that “the American states could never have had any sovereignty of their own.”
    Well you’re both wrong, as the most cursory reading of history proves when bereft of kool-aid.

    4. Once again you ignore the inconvenient truth  of each state being a sovereign nation unto itself.

  • Joshua

    But the US gets all the blame for slavery

    Yes, when I watch Spartacus, I curse the US and burn another stars and stripes flag.

    Actually, I lie, I’ve never seen it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    Back under your bridge, troll.

  • D9000

    Is it wrong to purchase slaves, or not?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    Is it wrong to invade, murder and conquer peaceful sovereign nations, or not?

  • D9000

    Yes. Now answer my question.

  • Donalbain

     Slavery is not peaceful. Never is.

  • http://accidental-historian.typepad.com/ Geds

     Is it wrong to invade, murder and conquer peaceful sovereign nations, or not?

    The folks in South Carolina sure seemed to think it was okay when they opened fire on Fort Sumter.  And all of the people calling for a march on Washington, D.C. in the spring of 1861 seemed to think it was just fine and dandy.  Oh, and then there was Kentucky, which declared itself neutral in the conflict.  It’s really too bad that the Union invaded them and…oh, wait, no, the Confederacy invaded Kentucky in September of 1861.

    Oops.

  • Morilore

    Since you posted approximately twelve hundred thousand times since last night, I’ll just pick this post to reply to.

    1. (Down’s Syndrome as an insult.  Classy.)  Military conscription is not the same thing as chattel slavery.  Military conscription was not inherited by the conscripts’ children, just to pick one outrageously obvious distinction.

    2. “The US gets all the blame for slavery” that is exactly the opposite of what is going on here.  You’re the one heaping scorn on the United States here.

    3. Argumentum ad Hitlerum just makes you look more ridiculous.

    4. No one here cares about sovereignty.  Do you get that?  It’s irrelevant.  Moral arguments against invading nations around here stem from a comparison of the harm caused by action and inaction, not from some arbitrary “principle” of “sovereignty.”

  • Patrick Spens

     I am reasonably certain that you are kidding with these posts, but I’m bored so here goes.

    1. You do not need to think that conscription is morally upright to realize it is not as bad as slavery. A conscripted solider may well be force to fight, kill and die in an unjust war and that is horrible but there are some key differences.  (trigger warning for sexual assault). 

    Conscription is temporary, and usually lasts a couple of years. Chattel slavery could be, and often was, for life. You could be born a slave, live all of you life as property, and die without ever knowing freedom. Secondly, when the Union (or for that matter, the Confederacy) conscripted a soldier, his wife and children would stay home and not be sold off to some plantation in the deep south where he would never see them again. Slaves, on the other hand, were regularly separated from their families. Also, conscripted solders were not regularly raped by their owners, or loaned out to by raped by other owners, or sold for the specific purpose of being raped by new owners. Guess what happened to actual slaves?

    I’ll try to summarize my mutant logic here. Forcibly conscripting human beings to fight and die in a war is extremely morally dubious, and should only be done in extreme circumstances. Like say, being faced with massive group of traitors trying to rip the United States in half and planning to turn the southern states into an expansionist empire powered by human bondage and suffering.

    2.  There isn’t really a lot coherent in this point to argue against, so I’m just going to mention that the phrase American Empire is really more accurately used to describe things like the Annexation of Hawa’ii, the creation of Texas and the conquest of the Philippines then the 13th Amendment or Brown v. Board of Education.

    3. Okay, this is some legitimately wonderful trolling, and I salute you for it. I would just like to ask whether you agree that “That Federal Government  [should]  never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States” *

    4. The Confederacy disagreed with you that States should be sovereign nations. Their constitution explicitly states that the federal government formed between them was meant to be permanent. This would of course forbid any succession.

    *Lincoln said this.

    Also, you mentioned that Lincoln imprisoned 20,000 journalists. Given that 13,000 civilians total were imprisoned under martial law, I am curious where you got that number from.

  • VMink

    Forcibly conscripting human beings to fight and die in a war is extremely morally dubious, and should only be done in extreme circumstances. Like say, being faced with massive group of traitors trying to rip the United States in half and planning to turn the southern states into an expansionist empire powered by human bondage and suffering.

    I want to hang this quote this on my wall in bronze.  Because it summarizes what the Civil War was about.  Not any mealy-mouthed revisionist backpedaling about “states’ rights,” because the primary sources from the time talk about how all those states with their ‘peculiar institution’ are secceding because they’re getting pressured to abolish slavery.

  • P J Evans

    in a country where federal law has enslaved more free men under military conscription for wars

    You seem to misunderstand military conscription. It wasn’t slavery for the draftees – they were in for a minimum amount of time, or the duration. That was how it worked in the Civil War, too.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    > “You seem to misunderstand military conscription. It wasn’t slavery for
    the draftees – they were in for a minimum amount of time, or the
    duration.”

    Irrelevant.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    However the fact remains secession was absolutely legal, and each state
    nationally sovereign, regardless of the unfortunate implications for
    human rights– again, as with the autocratic domestic policy matters of
    any sovereign nation.

    Oh. well then. I guess you’ve just bowled us all over with your scintillating wit in “proving” the South should have won after all!

    Why, bless your heart.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    You can’t be a proud sheep, son.

  • Morilore

    It’s one thing to “praise slavery,” it’s another entirely to simply deny that it’s the crime against humanity that we’ve made it out to be– particularly in a country where federal law has enslaved more free men under military conscription for wars to expand empires,  than ever under chattel slavery.

    This is an absolutely atrocious comparison and if you are intelligent enough to type this faux-intellectual hot air then you are intelligent enough to realize how utterly appalling this comparison is.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     >”This is an absolutely atrocious comparison”

    That’s because you’re a douchebag.

  • Lori

    Rep. Loy Mauch is one of three Republican incumbents in the Arkansas
    legislature who just got cut off from the state party’s campaign funds
    on account of publicly praising slavery.  

    I’m going to withhold judgement on this. Recent history would seem to indicate that being cut off from the GOP coffers will last only until it looks like their seats could be lost to a Democrat.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Again, did he actually praise slavery?

    The dogma of the status quo can label anything as “praising slavery,” just like other nations will label as “holocaust denial” any question regarding the accuracy of the 6-million figure.

    It seems that we  live under a similar censorship, whereby the wrong questions against the “official” truth will be met with similar suppression.

  • Mrfun13

    Is this guy for real?

    I’ll guess I’ll feed the troll.

    Trainer:

    Nice Gish Gallop you’ve got there. Answer this question: do you think slavery is a good thing?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

    Try again, this time WITHOUT the ass-clown costime.

  • EllieMurasaki

    /me looks in

    /me shakes head

    /me sighs

    Y’all carry on the good work of (educating,beating with cluebats) Trainer. My hand hurts worse with every vaguely typy motion I make, has been for a few hours, and I think I had best reserve the typy motions for when I’m being paid to make them. Or when somebody says something particularly egregious that nobody’s countered before I see the original statement, but I should probably keep that down too. :(

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Ah, the Valley of the Trolls….

  • JustoneK

    Good god this new guy is pretentious as crap.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4 Trainer

     Good god this troll is stupid as crap.

  • JustoneK

    Deflection does not suit you.  Pick a position and stick with it, or it’s easy to read your fervent defense as hollow as yer actual arguments.

  • christopher_young

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Troll School sends its students to this site in their first year of postgrad. Because we certainly get the cream of the crop.

  • Joshua

    Nah, over at Slashdot, when I used to read it, they refined trolling to a subtle art. Does get boring eventually though. This guy’s just lapsing into misspelled verbal abuse.

  • heckblazer

    Against my better judgement, a few points:

    The Confederacy could not have seceded in response to the tyranny of Lincoln  for the simple reason he was not yet president when the Confederacy was formed.  Allowing states to leave whenever they disliked the results of an election would have doomed the continued existence of the United States.
    The Confederacy used conscription, and indeed instituted a draft before the Union did.  The Confederate draft also happened to exempt slave-owners who owned more than 20 slaves.

    The Swiss would dispute the contention that conscription is a form of slavery and would instead claim that it is necessary for the preservation their freedom and democracy.  Given the distinct lack of successful invasions in Switzerland’s  history make me suspect that they’re not crazy.

    Invading the neutral border state of Kentucky was an unusual method for the Confederacy to champion the sacred principal of state’s rights.

    Marx thought wage-slavery was superior to slavery-slavery, leading him to support the Union over the Confederacy, and more generally capitalism over feudalism.    Contra the British conventional wisdom of the time, Marx also correctly recognized that slavery and not tariffs was the underlying cause of the war.

    Lincoln and his generals were like a  conservative Prussian-dominated professional military that reluctantly followed the orders of a leader they thought was a major goofball?  I don’t get it.

  • dongisselbeck

    It’s amazing how much the arguments of Confederacy apologists sound like those of birthers, truthers, geocentrists, chemtrailers, etc. There must be some sort of brain warp going on.

  • LL

    Slavery would be one solution to the unemployment crisis. 

    Hear  me out: the now-unemployed get work AND room and board, employers get low-cost labor, it’s win-win. Well, OK, it’s win-kinda win, but hey, can’t make omelets without breaking some eggs, right? 

    That’s the point these slavery apologists are trying to make. These are desperate times, we can’t afford to reject any idea out of hand, no matter how morally bankrupt it may be. The fact that  none of them are volunteering to experience slavery themselves is a minor detail that you should pay no attention to whatsoever. They’re the idea people, the big picture guys, they’re not gonna do the actual work. That’s for the rest of us, to work out those details. They are the visionaries. Obviously.

  • http://accidental-historian.typepad.com/ Geds

    Good fucking night, but Trainer went from semi-interesting troll to barely-literate troll fast.  Or is that just because I’m only catching up now?

    Someone who actually read his long-ass posts from the beginning please fill me in: did Trainer at any point bring up the Nullification Crisis of 1832?  Or the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions?  Or New England’s response to the Tariff of 1807/War of 1812?  Or Peters?  Or Osborn v. Bank of the United States?  Or Cohens v. Virginia?  Or all the BS the south tried to pull during desegregation and the Civil Rights Movement?[1]

    Because, really, it seems like it’s extremely difficult to talk about sovereignty in the several states without discussing the vast amount of historical precedence that existed before the Civil War and the several times it was tried again after the Civil War and how nullification was, well, nullified each and every fucking time.

    I’m getting really tired of ignorant jackasses making this argument, is what I’m saying.

    But, hey, what can we say about an obvious troll being an obvious troll and then calling the regulars who are telling him to STFU trolls?  Ignorant obliviousness, thy name be Trainer.

    [1]Admission:  I did a page search for the term “nullification” and got bupkis.  This doesn’t rule out the possibility that Trainer brought it up without using the term, as it’s a big, long, complicated word that also encompasses a big, long, complicated argument and Trainer only seems to know the things that Trainer has been trained to parrot and/or copy-paste.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    Or is that just because I’m only catching up now?

    No, it was a pretty sharp transition. My guess is that the original post was carefully crafted (perhaps by someone else) and used to fish for responses on a number of different sites; we fell for it here, got her attention, and everything thereafter was more off-the-cuff.

    And, no, while I haven’t read everything she’s written, I haven’t seen anything that acknowledges the complexities of inter-state relations.

    Also, her response to my pointing out that the Germany:Poland relationship was importantly different from the Union:Confederacy relationship was to point out that Hitler thought that, too. (No, seriously. In as many words.) So I suspect there’s not some subtle level of political theory embedded in the stuff I haven’t read.

  • Morilore

    No, it was a pretty sharp transition. My guess is that the original post was carefully crafted (perhaps by someone else) and used to fish for responses on a number of different sites; we fell for it here, got her attention, and everything thereafter was more off-the-cuff.

    I asked if Trainer was from Stormfront because that is actually a favored tactic of Stormfronters: to devise massive copypastas in their own wretched fortress and toss them around the internet as flamebait.  I did a Google search of some of the lines in the opening volley, but didn’t get anything back.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    I did a Google search of some of the lines in the opening volley, but didn’t get anything back.

    Yeah, ditto, which is one reason I was willing to engage with her as an agent with good faith back then. My error.

  • BaseDeltaZero

    I asked if Trainer was from Stormfront because I think this is something Stormfronters do: devise massive copypastas in their own wretched fortress and toss them around the internet as flamebait.  I did a Google search of some of the lines in the opening volley, but didn’t get anything back.

    You’d think Stormfront would be more explicitly racial dreck, though, rather than psuedo-libertarian dreck.  Also, they probably wouldn’t call people Nazis as an insult.  What with being Nazis and all.  Unless it was some kind of elaborate false flag operation…

  • Tapetum

    Well! Looks like I completely missed the infrapont invasion. Complete with herds of teal deer no less.  Maybe next time.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    “herds?” More like a stampede of teal deers :P

  • EllieMurasaki

    Did Trainer get banned? Please tell me that, after asking if one commenter were a pedophile rapist and if a female-named commenter likes BDSM/rape (can’t tell from the description which was meant), Trainer got banned. We can deal with a troll who’s defending slavery on states’ rights grounds, as the question is entirely academic at this point. But those first two comments are triggery and out of the blue and not pertinent to a damned thing.

  • Lori

    I flagged both those comments and I assume that others did as well. I would hope they were ban-worthy. (I can think of at least one poster who was banned for less.)

  • http://spacecoyotevega.livejournal.com/ vega

     Oh… banned already? Damn, I was hoping this one might have a little more mileage in em before they started pulling that kind of crap. I was bored. Sorry any of you guys were subjected to that. :(

  • Vermic

    Regarding secession, a few questions I wonder about.

    It’s been established that unilateral secession from the U.S. is unlawful.  Are there any lawful provisions under which a state or group of states could be granted independence?  For instance, if Texas wanted to become independent, what would be required?  (I assume, at the bare minimum, consent of Congress as well as the Texas state legislature.)

    Specifically with the Civil War, if in 1861 the Southern states, instead of seceding unilaterally, had come before Congress and petitioned for Southern independence, what would have happened?  Could an arrangement have been made?  I would imagine that many Northerners would have been perfectly happy to say “good riddance” to the slave states, had it not taken the form of open rebellion.

    And how does this all work in Canada, since I know the issue of sovereignty for Quebec comes up occasionally?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    For all practical purposes I suspect Quebec seccession would require some serious negotiating.

    For the USA, it takes an Act of Congress to make a state, so I assume Congress could vote to un-make a state if they wanted. In practical terms I think mutually agreed upon secession would require, again, some pretty protacted negotiations.

  • Lori

    For the USA, it takes an Act of Congress to make a state, so I assume
    Congress could vote to un-make a state if they wanted. In practical
    terms I think mutually agreed upon secession would require, again, some
    pretty protacted negotiations.  

    To the best of my knowledge no legal mechanism exists for un-making a state. In theory Congress could create one, but I’m not sure what that would involve. I suspect whatever it is would never get enough agreement to pass.

  • Rhubarbarian82

     I’ve wondered that, too. Even today, if a lot of the Southern states were able to vote themselves all off the island, I’d be pretty okay with that.

  • Joshua

    I’d agree, it would ironically make these “Moochers need to stand on their own feet!” cranks actually stand on their own feet, without relying on the economic engines on either coast.

    However, realistically a new Confederacy would contain plenty of (i) African Americans (African Confederates? erk) (ii) people of Latin descent, and (iii) lots of nukes.

    Life would suck for the first two, and the third would make life suck for everyone else, too. How long before they started firing those off?

  • Patrick Spens

    The way it has worked in Quebec, is that Separatists would call for a province-wide referendum. If a majority of Quebeccers voted for sovereignty, then (long, bitter, acrimonious) negotiations would take place between the provincial and federal government would take place over the particulars. i.e. How much of Quebec actually separates from Canada, what happens to Quebeccers who don’t want to stop being Canadian, what kind of border and trade policies would be between the two nations etc. Then if Quebeccers hadn’t changed their minds, the province would separate.

    It’s worth noting the legal justification for Quebec separating has to do with Quebec being a pre-existing political body that joined Canada in Confederation. A province like Alberta or Manitoba that was created by the Federal Government, would be on much shakier legal ground if it tried to separate.

  • Carstonio

    If I had been President, I might have been tempted to offer to recognize Southern independence in exchange for slaveowners allowing all slaves to leave the region. I wouldn’t have expected the offer to accepted – it would purely be a propaganda tactic. After all, the documents of secession in many of those states explicitly stated that the issue was Northern and Republican opposition to slavery.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Texas may be a bad example because I keep hearing that Texas wrote it into the annexation treaty that Texas would be permitted to secede. But I just read the treaty and I see no such language.

  • Tricksterson

    It is part of the state constitution that Texas can be broken up, not sure what the process is, into five seperate states.  Maybe you or your source confused this with the right to secede?

  • EllieMurasaki

    One of my sources is Texas Governor Rick Perry, so.

  • VCarlson

    One of my sources is Rick Perry

    ‘Nuff said.

    My understanding (from my Dad) is that when Texas joined the Union by treaty (one of about 3 states to do it that way), it reserved the right to break itself into 5 parts. I’ve always wondered if the whole trying to leave by violence and being vanquished thing that happened after that didn’t have an effect on that.

  • VCarlson

    Sorry about the misquote (leaving out the “Texas Governor” part). Disqus on a mobile doesn’t allow anything but straight typing – a copypaste makes it go into a terminal sulk, so I had to rely on imperfect memory.

  • Tricksterson

    What were the other two?  I’m thinking Utah was one?

  • VCarlson

    Turns out I was remembering wrong. There were 4 states that were “independent” before joining the US: Republic of Vermont, Republic of Texas, the California Republic, and the Kingdom of Hawai’i. Of those, only Texas and Hawai’i were internationally recognized (per Wikipedia, which of course is never wrong. Though this does match with my memories for Texas, California, and Hawai’i, anyway).

  • P J Evans

     I don’t think California was internationally recognized as a republic, but hten it wasn’t an independent republic for very long. (However, it’s the only state to use the word on its flag – and it’s been on the flag since it was a republic.)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7NB5FJ2VSINZPTPUGCJI6C24SU Kadia

    One of my sources is Texas Governor Rick Perry, so.

    So what you’re saying is that you just made it up?

    It is part of the state constitution that Texas can be broken up, not sure what the process is, into five seperate states.  Maybe you or your source confused this with the right to secede?

    Does it have to be exactly 5 or can it be up to 5? 

  • EllieMurasaki

    http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/more-perry-remarks-about-secession-come-light/
    Texans have a “different feeling about independence,” Perry told the group.

    “When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a stand-alone nation,” the governor can be heard saying. “And one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.”

    I don’t know where he got that idea but I certainly did not invent it. The five-states thing comes from https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States:

    New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

  • AnonymousSam

    A point strikes me which seriously gives me pause, although it’s probably just a quirk of language.

    Was – past tense
    Were – hypothetical tense

    “If I was lying” means “If I had been lying at that time.”
    “If I were lying” means “Imagine I had been lying.”

    Mauch progresses from saying “if slavery was that bad” to “if slavery were bad”, indicating a transition from saying that slavery in the past may or may not have been bad to “is slavery really bad at all?”

    Just a bit of really disgusting food for thought.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Was – past tense, 1st & 3rd person singular, indicative mood
    Were – subjunctive mood, all persons & numbers, tense is… vague in English; or, past tense indicative mood, 2nd person & all plural
    That is all.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Is that meant to support Sam’s point or contradict it? Because Sam’s pretty much describing the difference between indicative and subjunctive, and (assuming the speaker he’s criticizing knew there’s a difference) that difference does produce exactly the meaning Sam says.

    (Or did you provide links that would clarify that question if I could see the links? Goddamn fucking Disqus strips formatting from email notifs. Why they want email comment trackers to see plain-text comments only, when the notifs themselves are HTML and not plain-text…)

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Neither support nor contradict; just an aside.  Yes, the difference was between moods (indicative & subjunctive), but he had labeled them as tenses.

  • AnonaMiss

    When the federal government conscripts people in perpetuity, including their descendents; when the federal government breeds its conscripts without their consent, and allows comissioned officers to rape them outright; when the federal government confiscates the entirety of its conscripts’ property, and compensates its conscripts only in food and shelter; when the federal government forcibly converts its conscripts to a religion of its choice, stamping out peoples and leaving them with only the color of their skin as their identity, only their bondage as their cultural legacy; then, perhaps, we can have a conversation about the similarities between military conscription and slavery as it was practiced in the United States South.

    The sad part is that there are much better ways to point out hypocrisy wrt us occupying Yanks and slavery. Like the fact that we use slave labor to make our clothes, our toys, our cars, our gadgets; or the fact that the Iraq war, not a conscripted war mind you, was waged on the backs of thousands of literal slaves.

    Instead you go for conscription, which hasn’t been used since Vietnam, and which would be political suicide for any government figure who suggested mobilizing it again.

    I suspect – to put it politely – ideological motivation here.

  • AnonaMiss

    Awww, the troll got banned. Sads.

  • gocart mozart

    Also, my pet peave, States don’t have rights, only people do.  I wonder if this trainer jaggoff would be fine if his home state were to open a deathcamp and claim that any federal attempts to stop it were infringements on “freedom” or Free-Dumb. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    As long as anyone who went in was Not People–black, gay, Jewish, whatever, don’t know, not clear on how Trainer defines ‘People’–I suspect Trainer would not be bothered in the least.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     

      I wonder if this trainer jaggoff would be fine if his home state were to open a deathcamp

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio springs instantly to mind for some reason. 

    (Seriously, why is that godawful thug still in office?)

  • BaseDeltaZero

    Specifically with the Civil War, if in 1861 the Southern states, instead of seceding unilaterally, had come before Congress and petitioned for Southern independence, what would have happened?  Could an arrangement have been made?  I would imagine that many Northerners would have been perfectly happy to say “good riddance” to the slave states, had it not taken the form of open rebellion.

    Possibly.  It’d at least take the same majority as a Constitutional Amendment – since that’s what it is, essentially, but it’s not theoretically impossible. Whether it’d be politically feasible is another matter.

    Life would suck for the first two, and the third would make life suck for everyone else, too. How long before they started firing those off?

    Roughly 2.5 seconds?

    In all seriousness, though, the nukes are the property of the United States military, not the states they’re contained in… actually getting secession passed would be hard enough, keeping the nuclear weapons in the southern territories would be next to impossible.

  • http://accidental-historian.typepad.com/ Geds

    In all seriousness, though, the nukes are the property of the United
    States military, not the states they’re contained in… actually getting
    secession passed would be hard enough, keeping the nuclear weapons in
    the southern territories would be next to impossible.

    Which would actually be really interesting if you expand on that thought.  Think of all the military bases the US government pays for down in the theoretically seceding land.  Think of all the local branch offices of, say, the FBI, the ICE, and what have you.  I imagine that all of those things would also shut down as part of a secession agreement.

    I’d say the immediate chaos and realization of just how much federal money is propping up the several southern states would be a hell of a lot of fun to watch.  But then I realize that it would include pulling the EPA away from the southern half of the Mississippi River and the Gulf Coast.  That’s terrifying.

  • P J Evans

     I read a short story by Turtledove in which Lee is actually in command at the Alamo when Texas votes to secede, and gets his people out alive.

  • Tricksterson

    Then there’s Roswell Texas where Davy Crockett survives the Alamo, assassinates Santa Anna and uses his influence to keep Texas independent.  In it Lincoln persuades it tostay neutral in return for the Confederate states west of the Mississipii.  It also hasMalcolm Little Meir Kahane and George Rockwell as Texas Rangers and SS troopers in pink.  It’s a hoot.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7NB5FJ2VSINZPTPUGCJI6C24SU Kadia

    The time when the United States was really just a bunch of isolated communities tied together solely by a few pieces of paper, like a very large homeowner’s association, is long gone. Actually pulling the United States into two countries, or three, or fifty would be nearly impossible and almost completely catastrophic. It’s one of those things we literally can’t do any more without burning it all down, like going to war with Canada or closing our borders and begin subsistence agriculture. There was a time when any of those things would have been technically feasible but not we just wouldn’t survive.

  • Joshua

    In all seriousness, though, the nukes are the property of the United States military, not the states they’re contained in… actually getting secession passed would be hard enough, keeping the nuclear weapons in the southern territories would be next to impossible.

    In this completely unlikely scenario, do you really think the seceding entity would just hand them over? I doubt it.

    “We’re half the states, we should get have the nukes, be fair!”

    I doubt it could be done without a war. And there is a lot of conventional military infrastructure down that way, too.

  • Hawker40

    “In all seriousness, though, the nukes are the property of the United States military, not the states they’re contained in… actually getting secession passed would be hard enough, keeping the nuclear weapons in the southern territories would be next to impossible.”

    Which was the issue at Fort Sumter: the fort was federal property that happened to be in the newly soveriegn state of South Carolina.  I think we all know how that turned out.

    I have a feeling that nukes would be an even worse issue than a incomplete fort.

  • Nirrti

     “….however our Lincoln-lovers and Confederacy-haters today do likewise in
    condemning deprivations of liberty of which they personally disapprove,
    while praising and boasting of their pet versions like conscription,
    jury-service, compulsory school-attendance and income-taxes.”

    I know I’m a little late to the little love-fest going on here but…

    OH NOEZ!! NOT TEH EVIL EDUMACATION AND LEARNINS EDUCATIN’ AND LEARNIN’ THE KIDZ!!!!!1!!!

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yes, indeed–if people know that they have choices in life beyond filling the same economic niche as their parent of the same sex, how will anyone ever be free to choose to fill the same economic niche as their parent of the same sex?

  • Kiba

    I heard that growing up and when our bastard Governor was running in the Primaries. Having read the state constitution as well as the treaty and not finding anything there to back them up I’m chalking it up as mythological b.s.  

    Edit: This is in reply to EllieMurasaki since Disqus isn’t showing the “in reply to” for me.

  • BaseDeltaZero

    I have a feeling that nukes would be an even worse issue than a incomplete fort.

    Nukes are at least somewhat portable, a fortress isn’t.  So there’s that.

  • SkyknightXi

    (Tripwire warning: abuse mention)

    It’s true that I skimmed over quite a bit of the latter portion of this thread, but I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the reason Trainer deemed trespass of sovereignty, even to dispel something as monstrous as slavery, as Inherently Bad is because they think that vengeance belongs only to God (remember where they said flat-out, early on, that if you think you know more than Jesus, you’re wrong?). In other words, one has no right to break international law even to avenge injustice, because God has that coming anyway. As though the point were to avenge the preceding slavery, rather than interdict its continuation.

    And yet…I wonder about the scales ones like Trainer would use. Some forms of anarchism (typically with a right-libertarian slant) regard one’s personal property as sovereign of the deedholder. I’m worried that I’m a little too far down the slippery slope (to them, at least), but would it be permissible in such ones’ eyes to round up a posse to forcibly enter a home and rescue someone who was unequivocally suffering physical or otherwise abuse? It’s the old problem of delayed justice being a form of denied justice. And really, with the particular theological conceit in the above paragraph, God is doing an amazing job of denying justice. (And while it’s probably playing semantics, a God properly above criticism like Trainer suggests can be seen as yokeless. Or, to translate “yokeless” into the Hebrew…BELIAL.)

    Then again…I wouldn’t be surprised if Trainer was (thinking themselves to be, at least) concerned with breach of personal sovereignty. The quandary in question is “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Conscription, whether military or jury, is arguably a trespass of personal sovereignty, in that you’re prevented from doing what you originally intended to do, and these aren’t always freely chosen responsibilites (well…responsibilities you’re willing to get foisted on you at a few months’ notice). So I wonder if, to Trainer, attacking the Confederacy to dispel slavery was actually an even worse crime than southern slavery, by compounding at least two sovereignty breaches to the Confederacy’s one–breaching the South’s national sovereignty by invasion and regime change, and breaching the North’s citizens’ personal sovereignty by conscription, and suspension of habeas corpus. Oddly, though, this sounds a little like the philosophical difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Theravada says that one should focus on one’s own attainment of Nirvana, while Mahayana thinks one should forgo that last step in favor of helping everyone else attain Nirvana first, even if it means staying in Samsara for more time. Mahayana thinks Theravada is being selfish. Theravada (probably) thinks Mahayana is just making things more difficult with everyone because the wide-range benevolence “just” accrues more positive kharma, rather than neutralizing kharma outright (positive kharma=still on Samsara, even if it is in the more deva-like incarnations). That is, at least from Mahayana’s perspective, Theravada thinks agape is self-defeating; one should not succor the world, and in the process get IT stuck in the agape trap, but merely withdraw from it. Everyone doing that will end Samsara as a whole much quicker than Mahayana agape ever would. (Theravada Buddhists reading this are now commanded to correct the errors preceding.)

    Mapping this to sovereignty/free market precepts, trying to fix problems in outside sovereignties just creates an agape trap that further undermines sovereignty, and with it the sense of security (q.v. what happens if you’re doing something that can’t really be said to wound anyone, but someone STILL thinks is a grave breach of morality. Basically, slippery slope concerns.). The belief that you’re permitted to intervene for the motive of agape is thought to actually make things MORE parlous. In other words, when ethics and morality collide, one ought ALWAYS to side with ethics. The conceit seems to be that morality is subjective and so not completely dependable, but ethics is objective, and so completely dependable. (Never mind that it looks a little like Trainer thinks ethics are the One True Morality…) In an odd sense, intervening agape could be seen as actually SELFISH here. True respect and humility are seen as accepting (fatalistically, if you ask me…) that one can only do right with oneself and those closest to them. Worrying about the world when it’s not actively affecting you is ruinous, agape self-contradictory; only storge, eros, and philia are truly acceptable to act upon. Hence, laissez-faire–anything further is an agape trap, whether economically or politically. I have a hunch this also explains early 20th-century isolationism.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    As for the ‘Texas Secession” thing, here’s my go-to reply:

    “Houston, We Have a Solution”
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCLz7XQOIOQ
    (Warning: very rude to Texans.)