Answering the Right

This post is an answer to a discussion that began on another site with Courageous Lion. I will post the link to the column and the earlier part of the discussion can be read there.

Let me just note the substack I am referring to is Monica’s Dark Corner and she has been writing a series of essays about the civil war. From my perspective (and if one approaches the topic unemotionally biased towards north or south) her description of Sherman’s ravaging of the south was as vicious a move as any other actions of warfare violence. It was only good because it was successful in bringing about the reunification which was Lincoln’s purpose, not ending slavery.

No matter how normal a few contemporary historians enamored with Lincoln’s success want to make him heroically god-like, he broke every norm of the constitution: overriding vetoes and court decisions and assuming dictatorial powers over both branches; suspending habeas corpus, and using the military tribunal for non-military trials.

Now those actions are seen as necessary by those who think Lincoln’s pursuit of the war was right or necessary, they were nevertheless wrongs to those who lost and the healing of that wrong has not healed.

This conversation with Courageous Lion began, however, with a post by Ms.Monica on the elements of punishment, and to a large degree the hypocrisy, of the 14th amendment. Those elements are there—

Indiana, for instance not only denied former slaves from voting (well the fourteenth didn’t grant them that right), but from entering the state.

But the punishment element cannot be denied in the fourteenth amendment.

Now I find myself of two minds about the fourteenth amendment. The first mind is its lack of absolute resolution continued to allow dissension to foster and to use “slave freedom” as a curmudgeon to prevent any unifying healing between north or south. In other words it needed to be more proactive and needed to apply to worker abuses in the north and to more thoroughly reform the electoral processes that were dominated by wealth.

But that is my meager opinion, I think it failed to accomplish as much as has been claimed for it.

This was made possible by lackadaisical enforcement legislatively in face of the gilded barons own contractual enslavements of its workers; and by the courts refusal to grant any substantive interpretations to the fourteenth amendment rendering it legally unenforceable.

Of course the exception was the first John Marshall Harlan and in the 20th century his dissents began to be assents and I think the substantive interpretation very valuable.

But no one can deny their was a punitive element involved, both by its words and by the legislative discussions and much of that came from the desire of some to punish the south for its audacity in fighting the war; others to punish them for having had slaves; and probably unconstitutionally refuse to reconcile their war debts nationally which although not as acclaimed a part of the amendment became the most galling emotional and material punishment to the south at that time.

At any rate, I responded to the article, by writing, “I understand where you are coming from in this article. And I don't think you are necessarily incorrect.

On the other hand the consequences of your being correct I do not like because overall I believe the fourteenth was more beneficial to future history than not.”

Mr.Courageous Lion responded to my comment, thusly, "On the other hand the consequences of your being correct I do not like because overall I believe the fourteenth was more beneficial to future history than not." How is a falsehood, something based on lies beneficial to anyone? Except for those who pushed it through?”

Part of my response to this, was to write, “I'm not sure what falsehoods you are talking about? They admitted in debates and in some of its clauses they were indeed punishing the southerners they saw as treasonous. If you mean that was treasonous itself because the south should have had a right to secede, I might tend to agree, but once the war is over, and the south became part of the union again, the leaders who led the secession are the very definition of treason. They would be considered treasonous probably anywhere. If you mean treason itself is a falsehood, that opens an unresolvable conflict I have no way to determine if we are to have nation states. But,as I said, if you think only that in this instance it was not, well, as I already stated, that is what nations almost always generally define as treason. It's not what you or I decide is treason, but what the state decides, and to the southerners, the northerners nevertheless, pursued the war because they did define the secession in that manner.

However if you are saying it was based on a falsehood because the northerners didn't grant civil rights to their own--that's hypocritical and wrong perhaps, but again not a falsehood or a lie because they did not disguise what they were doing.

So I don't see the falsehood here.

But as you quoted, I said I thought the fourteenth was overall more beneficial than not, and so I was really not speaking of the circumstances or hypocrisies, but of benefits to greater judicial conformity, but not always beneficial, only more than not. I also think the 21st was more beneficial than not, even though I'm a life-long non-drinker and think people in inebriated states often create conflict. But there seems to have been more conflict during prohibition;or at least it didn't end conflicts or states of inebriation.

It would be really easy if everything was clear--cut but life is messy and complicated.”

Courageous Lion the countered with, “done a lot of research into the War for Southern Independence and the South had every right to get out of the marriage contract. A couple of things to help your confusion:

Was The Civil War a War To Save The Union or to Destroy It's Very Foundations?

https://www.amazon.com/South-Was-Right-21st-Century/dp/1947660462”

I responded, “not my point.

whether they should have had that right, once they lost the war the right was taken from them.

whether the right existed;whether Lincoln should have forced their capitulation are entirely different discussions.

but for the record, three previous presidents, two of which had written states could nullify laws but then changed their position while president; and several court decisions prior to the war all said they did not have the right.

and yet two states were allowed to secede from existing states---Maine and West Virginia; and the State of Franklin joined the union only as part of another state (Tennessee). The State of Franklin became such (never an actual state, that was the name) became the State of Franklin by seceding from Virginia and North Carolina and then they compromised into Franklin being admitted to the union as part of Tennessee, not necessarily to the liking of all of those who had seceded to become the State of Franklin.

Now if you want my opinion on secession I might think every one should be able to secede from a govt. that didn't represent him, that after all is what the Dec. of Ind. stated.

But as a practical matter, the federalists position was too say the states never had such a right; and as Ms. Monica has pointed out, the war was not fought to end slavery but to prevent secession. So while we can continue to debate the morality of southern rights; the success of the northern victory took away the practicality of any such right. In other words, it became a legal non-right.”

Courageous Lion the suggested, “Rights are rights. You can only infringe on them There was no RIGHT taken from them. They were conquered by an invading army led by psychopaths like Sherman. What it boiled down to is posted in the article I linked to. If you don’t want to read it that’s fine, but without that knowledge, we are at a dead end in this debate.” (P.S. to Courageous Lion—I read your link,I just tend to not agree.)

Now I want to reply rights are something given; not something we have as inalienable. America has free speech, but in my youth you could be fined for using certain epithets in public. Books like Ulysses and Tropic of Cancer were illegal to sell, possess, or read; and in the movies, on-screen kisses could last for only a fraction of a second.

Violations had consequences because the right was only what the government said free speech could entail. On the other hand, at the same time the right to not be libeled was becoming severely limited and extremely costly so one could trashmouth others to one’s heart’s content.

So the right to be pottymouthed was being enabled as a right simultaneously as it was being censored in others as a right. I could call some one an n—; but i couldn’t call him a mf without being fined or spending a night in jail.

Abortion was a right for fifty years, then it wasn’t. We can argue until we are blue in the face about what should be right but the government that be entails the rights one has; other than that there are no “natural rights” other than existing in respect to each other and our environment.

There has never been any universally consensual agreements on what rights anyone has.

If we are speaking of rights as other than permissions that one is enabled to do by the authorities of one’s society; then we are speaking of rightness, not rights. But again, what is the ethical right? As I’ve often written about in this column, the ethical right can never be universally and always right behavior. Nothing can be right behavior because to be right creates an opposite wrong behavior and the doer of the right behavior often can harm (be wrongful) to the other. Whether the right is grounded in a legal right or a moral right makes no difference to those being harmed.

It does not therefore really matter if Lincoln’s pursuit of the war was morally right or legally right; the harm to many, in Lincoln’s pursuit of the right to hold the union together, harmed many. And frankly never really did “free” many (most?) from future harm.

As an absolutist in the sense that the goal is to create uniform legal and moral expectations, I tend to believe such uniformity can never be contingent on right action or created by legal enforcement.Both end up scattering manure on those not seen as right to the victors that determine the legal or moral ethic.

I can view achieving any uniform legal or moral expectation as being possible only if one is capable of admitting one can do harm even if one thinks one is benefitting. Recognition of any action being potentially harmful, should therefore lead to the Apology of Regret that at least leads to acknowledging other person respectfully.

We can try to not harm but damned if I’ve ever been able to not sometimes hurt the feelings or the person of another. Maybe I’m just more severely flawed than others, who can know?

So of course I don’t like Lincoln’s pursuance of attempting to prevent the secession of the south. As a gesture it backfired and created physical despair, but never created an emotional resundering, and more than likely resulted in more disparagement of the former slaves; more antagonism between sectional portions of the nation; more tensions (beginning after the civil war, not contemporaneously) between citizen and government/wealthy. I don’t think the war accomplished any healing.

But that does not mean I think the south was right in their practice of slavery; but they fought the war to preserve their right to slavery and Lincoln, at least, fought the south to preserve the right of the union to supercede the right of states to secede. Overall though the idea that the civil war was fought to end slavery is an after-the-fact transposition. The war was rather fought to preserve slavery and the consequence of losing the preservation of slavery ended it (at least ended the southern’s “peculiar” version of ownership of persons). I would think these rights of both sections are evidence of the wrongs of both purposes.

My own simple-minded view is not to pursue right, but to act against perceptions of wrongness and prevent such wrong actions as one can. In other words just refuse anyone the right to disrespect or physically harm another.

And refute your own disrespectful actions and ideas to the greatest degree possible.

The article and full conversation can be found here.

Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment