Would Washington have supported the Confederacy?

[Norstal]

Ouch.

The truth hurts. All this bullshit makes me want to build a Time Machine to tell my 3rd Great Grandfather that we didn't go far enough punishing the South. In fact I think torching the entirety of South Carolina would be an excellent start. Maybe give Sherman some more marching time. That people are still pulling out the same bullshit that came from the "Lost Noble Cause" historians of the South after the war is fucking disgusting. Defending White Supremacy under the idea of protecting history is intellectually vapid and dishonest.

Now now Musso, they are after all, a philosophy major.

[Mussoliniopoli]

It's no fallacy. I have a degree in Philosophy and have even taught Logic at the university level, in fact. While I'm hardly perfect, and I do occasionally commit fallacies, I should be recognized as an authority on the subject of Logic. I'm also able to see when I have said something fallacious (sometimes I even do it intentionally, because the level of discourse is obviously Rhetorical and not Logical), and I didn't say anything fallacious in that case. You evidently don't know what a Straw Man is, so I explained it to you and explained why what I said wasn't a Straw Man, and then indicated why you should pay attention to me in this matter.

Ahahaha.

A philosophy major appealing to authority. Holy shit.

I know I fuckin' lol'd. I think he went to Klansmen University as well since he claims his supposed History Department touts this line of the CSA is right in all things like Jesus himself. Must have been LSU in the 50s.

[Dusk_Kittens]

It's no fallacy. I have a degree in Philosophy and have even taught Logic at the university level, in fact. While I'm hardly perfect, and I do occasionally commit fallacies, I should be recognized as an authority on the subject of Logic. I'm also able to see when I have said something fallacious (sometimes I even do it intentionally, because the level of discourse is obviously Rhetorical and not Logical), and I didn't say anything fallacious in that case. You evidently don't know what a Straw Man is, so I explained it to you and explained why what I said wasn't a Straw Man, and then indicated why you should pay attention to me in this matter.

Ahahaha.

A philosophy major appealing to authority. Holy shit.

Yea, because "Appeal to Authority" is not always a fallacy. I am an authority on Logic, which means that stating such is not fallacious. Maybe you ought to look that fallacy up and see what it actually involves.

[Mussoliniopoli]

Ahahaha.

A philosophy major appealing to authority. Holy shit.

Yea, because "Appeal to Authority" is not always a fallacy. I am an authority on Logic, which means that stating such is not fallacious. Maybe you ought to look that fallacy up and see what it actually involves.

It is a fallacy for a 1st Year Philosophy Student you sure are unfamiliar with fallacies.

[Norstal]

Ahahaha.

A philosophy major appealing to authority. Holy shit.

Yea, because "Appeal to Authority" is not always a fallacy. I am an authority on Logic, which means that stating such is not fallacious. Maybe you ought to look that fallacy up and see what it actually involves.

Oh please. I'm a Computer Science major, we study logic, we KNOW when someone is using a fallacy and we know that fallacies are bad in all forms.

But of course, you're the philosophy major and everything is true when you guys say it, amirite.

[Dusk_Kittens]

I think he went to Klansmen University as well since he claims his supposed History Department touts this line of the CSA is right in all things like Jesus himself. Must have been LSU in the 50s.

And still more Ad Hominem.

Edit: And for the record, I'm a she, not a he. And I know, as I've seen it asserted repeatedly in these fora, some of you don't want to believe claims of gender, but you should at least be courteous enough to refer to me by the pronouns I indicate are correct, whether you believe I'm female or not (although expecting you to be concerned with courtesy is, perhaps, wishful thinking).

[Dusk_Kittens]

Yea, because "Appeal to Authority" is not always a fallacy. I am an authority on Logic, which means that stating such is not fallacious. Maybe you ought to look that fallacy up and see what it actually involves.

It is a fallacy for a 1st Year Philosophy Student you sure are unfamiliar with fallacies.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

Source

To sum up these points in a positive manner, before relying upon expert opinion, go through the following checklist:

* Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:
* Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else's. If so, proceed to the next question:
* Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:
* Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:
* Is the authority's opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority's opinion.

If an argument to authority cannot pass these five tests, then it commits the fallacy of appeal to misleading authority.

Source

The only way you could accuse me of having committed the informal fallacy of Appeal to Authority is in the question of bias. I'm not biased toward my own reasoning skills. If I make a logical mistake, I admit it. In the case in question, I was accused of having committed the fallacy of the Straw Man. I denied that, and explained what that fallacy actually is, and why I did not commit it, and when the accuser refused to accept what I stated, I referred to my own training to indicate that I am in fact, an authority on the matter of Logic.

But what I find sublimely ironic is that those of you who have repeatedly engaged in fallacy in the course of this discussion (and in fact continue to do so) are attempting to accuse me of a fallacy when you don't even know what the fallacy is.

[Neu California]

I have a question for you, Dusk_Kittens. Why should we accept that you havew a philosiphy degree on nothing but your insistence, while you're on the internet where anyone can claim anything?

I could, for example. claim that I'm a history major who's studied all the documents that pertain to the south's reason for secession and insist that it was almost entirely about slavery, but why should anyone believe me?

My point is no one has to believe your claims of authority on a subject, and when people don't believe your claims, just insisting you're an authority makes you look sillier and sillier.

[GeneralHaNor]

Jefferson told us why we needed to fight the crown.

Jefferson lied about why you needed to fight the Crown by deliberating ignoring the role of Parliament in the late 18th-century British constitution, and personalising the conflict as a rebellion against an individual, rather than the actual governing institutions of the British state. In mitigation, you could argue that he was focusing on the theory of Crown supremacy over the actual fact of checks and balances between the executive and legislature that would later go on to inspire a different foundational document of the United States (albeit one not written by Jefferson).

Also, the list of individual grievances against George III is at the very least a series of frequent exaggerations with a few gross untruths thrown in for good measure. For example, since no British monarch since Anne had, or has since, refused royal assent, Jefferson's very first charge against George III is a demonstrable falsehood.

Then again, I suppose telling the truth has never been a prerequisite for being an effective lawyer; and telling the truth is a positive impediment towards being an effective propagandist.

Rule by Divine Right is sufficient in and of itself to oppose the crown, all other reasons simply provide flavor.

[Mussoliniopoli]

I have a question for you, Dusk_Kittens. Why should we accept that you havew a philosiphy degree on nothing but your insistence, while you're on the internet where anyone can claim anything?

I could, for example. claim that I'm a history major who's studied all the documents that pertain to the south's reason for secession and insist that it was almost entirely about slavery, but why should anyone believe me?

My point is no one has to believe your claims of authority on a subject, and when people don't believe your claims, just insisting you're an authority makes you look sillier and sillier.

Indeed and as a History Major I would love to claim some kind of authority on the American Civil War but it isn't my area of study. Oh well forget it I have 20 Doctorates from various schools and I have taught courses on Constitutional Law as well as Pornography: A Modern Study of American Masturbation Methods...trust me I'm a doctor!

[GeneralHaNor]

Yea, because "Appeal to Authority" is not always a fallacy. I am an authority on Logic, which means that stating such is not fallacious. Maybe you ought to look that fallacy up and see what it actually involves.

Oh please. I'm a Computer Science major, we study logic, we KNOW when someone is using a fallacy and we know that fallacies are bad in all forms.

But of course, you're the philosophy major and everything is true when you guys say it, amirite.

As a Computer Science Major, I reject your claim to be an authority on argumentative logic. That is not a pre-requisite to my Associates Degree

[Dusk_Kittens]

I have a question for you, Dusk_Kittens. Why should we accept that you havew a philosiphy degree on nothing but your insistence, while you're on the internet where anyone can claim anything?

I could, for example. claim that I'm a history major who's studied all the documents that pertain to the south's reason for secession and insist that it was almost entirely about slavery, but why should anyone believe me?

My point is no one has to believe your claims of authority on a subject, and when people don't believe your claims, just insisting you're an authority makes you look sillier and sillier.

Fine, don't believe it on the basis of my claim. Keep watching my posts, and the evidence provided will support my claim.

[Distruzio]

Neo-Confederate White Supremacist Summer? I never thought I would say I miss the Neo-Nazis at least they were honest about their beliefs.

[Distruzio]

Now, that is a Straw Man characterization of my position. I admitted no such thing, and well you know it. The central issue was violation of the Constitution. The Constitution is a Contract between the States. If one party refuses to honor its obligations under the Contract, then that party may be sued or the other party may regard themselves as released from all obligations of the Contract.

Do you believe the South would have engaged in armed insurrection and secession if the Northern States had violated a clause of the Constitution regarding kegs of whiskey?

Considering that whiskey was an alternative quasi- medium of exchange, yes.

[Norstal]

Oh please. I'm a Computer Science major, we study logic, we KNOW when someone is using a fallacy and we know that fallacies are bad in all forms.

But of course, you're the philosophy major and everything is true when you guys say it, amirite.

As a Computer Science Major, I reject your claim to be an authority on argumentative logic. That is not a pre-requisite to my Associates Degree

No. But it is a perquisite for my Bachelor's.

And you're right, it's more of propositional logic. However, the same can be applied to it.

[New Chalcedon]

Do you believe the South would have engaged in armed insurrection and secession if the Northern States had violated a clause of the Constitution regarding kegs of whiskey?

Considering that whiskey was an alternative quasi- medium of exchange, yes.

Oh, you too, huh?

[Distruzio]

Ouch.

The truth hurts. All this bullshit makes me want to build a Time Machine to tell my 3rd Great Grandfather that we didn't go far enough punishing the South. In fact I think torching the entirety of South Carolina would be an excellent start. Maybe give Sherman some more marching time. That people are still pulling out the same bullshit that came from the "Lost Noble Cause" historians of the South after the war is fucking disgusting. Defending White Supremacy under the idea of protecting history is intellectually vapid and dishonest.

I completely agree. Southern nationalist reporting.

[Katonazag]

I think Washington would be a split decision, as the OP rightfully brought up. I think that as President, GW would have been pro-federalist under the principal that the United States is a nation of unity. However, he was also a proponent of liberty, which consequently shifts power to the lowest possible level. In all honesty, I think that GW would have let the Confederacy secede on principal.

Whether it is true or military "urban legend";
At Valley Forge, there was a task that involved heavy lifting of some sort of lumber. A Colonel was exhorting them to pull harder at task, while he himself was not physically helping. General Washington stepped in and physically helped, though unannounced and unrecognized.

Idk and Idc whether it's true or not. It the principal of the matter that matters. General Washington took care of his men as was the best of his ability, and in that respect, displayed unparalleled leadership.

In light of that, I think he would have supported the Confederacy considering the political climate of the day. Every attempt was made by the slave-holding states to preserve their economic position, and every effort was made by the free northern states to tax the hell out of the slave states solely on the basis of what industries the slave labor was being used for. As usual, the fight comes down to more than just a moral, ethical, or religious line: it's almighty dollar. I would think that Washington was about more than profit, and more about principal and about economic freedom. But at the same time, I don't think that given the political climate of the day that he would have ignored the slaves plight for freedom.

In high school, I actually presented a very socially liberal teacher with a report on the Biblicality of slavery and it's relation to the state of slavery in the Confederate States. I got an "A" on it. The point is, slavery as existed in the South during that era was "unbiblical", and therefore, failed. President Washington was a God-fearing man, and as such, probably would have eventually regulated the slave trade and practices, had he been in office long enough to do so. But for the design of the new nation, the political longevity required was not possible, and therefore you have the chain of events that leads up to the War Against Secession, etc.

Yet aganst Washington's avowed liberalism, you have issues such as the Whiskey Rebellion, in which he proved quite willing to assert Federal power to the maximum extent he believed permissible. Furthermore, I take exception to both your analysis of the political events leading up to the Civil War (particularly given that the tarriffs of 1857 were at a fourty-year low), as well as the causes of secession - given that none of these four declarations of secession stipulate economic causes for secession, instead citing slavery (and the repugnance of the Northern states for same, and the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the first President to vow to push for restrictions on slavery) as a main cause for secession.

Also, I would like to take furher exception to your characterisation of Washington as a man who would have wished to moderate the horrendous nature of the slavery of the day: besides being a slaveholder himself, there is no evidence that he in any way considered the way other slaveholders treated their human chattels.

You've got your opinions, I've got mine. The situation is purely hypothetical in the first place. Slavery was an economic issue in the south, just as much as it was steeped into the culture of the southern aristocracy, who consequently had a lot of the political sway. In fact, you can still find traces of where families with "old money" still have undue political influence because they've always been rich. The percentage of southerners who actually owned slaves was small, but they were the wealthiest. And what do rich people do? Hold on to their money with both hands and look for any way to keep it, by hook or by crook. In this case, they might as well have owned the government, and convincing masses of relatively uneducated but proud agrarian people that this "Abraham Lincoln" guy wants to sell them down the river by ruining life as they know it wouldn't have been too hard to do.

And I never said that Washington wanted to regulate the slave trade. I conjectured, per the OP, that if he had been there around that time, and given the political climate of that time, he may have wanted to regulate it. He was a man of reason, and I have no doubt that he would have seen it as a matter for the physical liberty of the slaves to trump the political liberty of their owners, were the proper people around to convince him with their arguments. He's not like our current and last few Presidents that act more like kings than Presidents, where even the definition of the word "is" is subject to mean what they say it means.

[Naurobia]

Probably he lived in Virginia, Owned Slaves and had no problem with it. So I would say yes. Probably would pull something like Lee but it would end up the same way.

Contrary to popular belief. The southern states didn't secede because of slavery. The seceded because they felt that the federal government became too powerful and was violating the rights of the states. in 1863 the Confederate States of America abolished slavery two years before the civil war ended. Also not a single slave ship sailed under a confederate flag.

[The Archregimancy]

Jefferson lied about why you needed to fight the Crown by deliberating ignoring the role of Parliament in the late 18th-century British constitution, and personalising the conflict as a rebellion against an individual, rather than the actual governing institutions of the British state. In mitigation, you could argue that he was focusing on the theory of Crown supremacy over the actual fact of checks and balances between the executive and legislature that would later go on to inspire a different foundational document of the United States (albeit one not written by Jefferson).

Also, the list of individual grievances against George III is at the very least a series of frequent exaggerations with a few gross untruths thrown in for good measure. For example, since no British monarch since Anne had, or has since, refused royal assent, Jefferson's very first charge against George III is a demonstrable falsehood.

Then again, I suppose telling the truth has never been a prerequisite for being an effective lawyer; and telling the truth is a positive impediment towards being an effective propagandist.

Rule by Divine Right is sufficient in and of itself to oppose the crown, all other reasons simply provide flavor.

Except George III didn't claim to rule by divine right. Britain definitively abandoned any pretence of royal divine right in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (it had in any case been fatally weakened by the execution of Charles I), and the institution of the Bill of Rights of 1689.

To argue that Jefferson cared one wit about the divine right of kings, or that the divine right of kings justified the American Revolution, is to either argue that Jefferson was an incompetent constitutional historian - which he wasn't - or to argue that the Revolution was retrospectively justified due to an anachronism that Britain had abandoned a century prior to the Revolution.

In fact, Jefferson's list of grievances doesn't mention divine right once; 'absolute despotism', yes, but he was far too clever to argue the point over the long-abandoned divine right. The Declaration is instead implicitly based on a breach of the compact between the ruled and the ruler that formed the basis of the British (technically, English in 1689) Bill of Rights.

Read the list of grievances against James II and the list of obligations of William & Mary at the beginning of the Bill of Rights:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

Then read Jefferson's list of grievances against George III.

The connection should be clear. In fact, in this regard Jefferson was arguably a plagiarist, as well as a propagandist.

And Jefferson was still guilty of personalising the conflict, while ignoring the role of Parliament in the late 18th-century British constitutional system, but - as I acknowledged - that arguably just makes him a decent propagandist lawyer.

[Myrensis]

Try referencing the history itself, instead of the spins which have been put on it. The non-slaveholding states violated the Constitution. There can be no debate about that. It is fact. The only question is whether South Carolina had any right to secede as a result. They proposed a logical argument in their Declaration of Secession which supported their right to secede. That argument is formally valid. Whether it's sound or not may be in question. I assert that it is sound.

I dispute that it is sound, because there is and was an avenue for seeking redress on Constitutiona; issues, the Supreme Court, which the South had full access too.

The souths argument for Secession basically boils down to "We can't always get everything we want in a Democracy or guarantee we'll win in the Courts, so we'll form our own nation where we can win all the time!"

Do you support the right of anyone to not only secede, but to attack the Federal Government in their new "nation" any time they lose an election, or dislike a law, or disagree with a ruling of the Courts, or simply decide that legal avenues of seeking redress take too long?

[Grave_n_idle]

Try referencing the history itself, instead of the spins which have been put on it. The non-slaveholding states violated the Constitution. There can be no debate about that. It is fact. The only question is whether South Carolina had any right to secede as a result. They proposed a logical argument in their Declaration of Secession which supported their right to secede. That argument is formally valid. Whether it's sound or not may be in question. I assert that it is sound.

I dispute that it is sound, because there is and was an avenue for seeking redress on Constitutiona; issues, the Supreme Court, which the South had full access too.

The souths argument for Secession basically boils down to "We can't always get everything we want in a Democracy or guarantee we'll win in the Courts, so we'll form our own nation where we can win all the time!"

Surely a fairer representation would be "we don't feel like our views are being given sufficient weight in this VOLUNTARY association, so we're going to opt out"?

Do you support the right of anyone to not only secede, but to attack the Federal Government in their new "nation" any time they lose an election, or dislike a law, or disagree with a ruling of the Courts, or simply decide that legal avenues of seeking redress take too long?

A different question, now, since Union is no longer considered a strictly voluntary state.

[Lord Tothe]

http://www.cracked.com/article_19223_6- ... -b.s..html

[Laerod]

Nope.

Yep.

Ooh. The "I have a degree in X" fallacy. Or whatever that's called.

It's no fallacy. I have a degree in Philosophy and have even taught Logic at the university level, in fact. While I'm hardly perfect, and I do occasionally commit fallacies, I should be recognized as an authority on the subject of Logic. I'm also able to see when I have said something fallacious (sometimes I even do it intentionally, because the level of discourse is obviously Rhetorical and not Logical), and I didn't say anything fallacious in that case. You evidently don't know what a Straw Man is, so I explained it to you and explained why what I said wasn't a Straw Man, and then indicated why you should pay attention to me in this matter.

Apparently it's an ipse-dixitism if you do a self-referrential appeal to authority.

I don't either, but that's mainly because it's two in the morning and I'll be off to bed in a moment. Been disproving the easier stuff for now.

The trouble is that you haven't disproved anything in this thread. You may believe that you have, but you have yet to do so in this thread.

The trouble is that I have disproven things in this thread. You may believe that I haven't, but that's not something I'm responsible for.

All the contracts I've signed have stipulations for what happens when a party fails to uphold their part of an agreement. That the agreement is null and void simply because one party hasn't met its obligations is not a given and must be explicitely spelled out.

Learn English and then read it again:
Show me where it says that the constitution is void if any party to it violates it.

I am quite competent in English, and your insolence isn't winning any points; ...

Apparently not. The stipulation that the Supreme Court is in charge of determining constitutionality is implicit in the constitution. That the constitution is null and void if part of it has been violated by any party is not.

I see. You have your blinds on again. Evidence has been provided.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever. In fact, you have ignored evidence simply because it doesn't suit your preconceived conclusion.

Dunno, maybe you should look up what "evidence" means. And yeah, pot meet kettle and all that on the last sentence.

[The Archregimancy]

It's no fallacy. I have a degree in Philosophy and have even taught Logic at the university level, in fact. While I'm hardly perfect, and I do occasionally commit fallacies, I should be recognized as an authority on the subject of Logic. I'm also able to see when I have said something fallacious (sometimes I even do it intentionally, because the level of discourse is obviously Rhetorical and not Logical), and I didn't say anything fallacious in that case. You evidently don't know what a Straw Man is, so I explained it to you and explained why what I said wasn't a Straw Man, and then indicated why you should pay attention to me in this matter.

What I'm about to say is an observation designed to be helpful - it's not a criticism. It's also written in my personal capacity, not in an official NS mod capacity.

Personal experience teaches that an appeal to self-authority need not be automatically rejected in an NSG debate.

However, personal experience also teaches that for that appeal to self-authority to carry any weight here, it probably needs to be based on an extensive posting record across a period of time that shows detailed knowledge of the subject in which authority is claimed.

For example, someone who's been here for several years, claims to be a university-level lecturer in archaeology, and has posted several detailed posts on archaeology and history (some of them with academic citations), or someone who claims to be a postgraduate student in physics, and has regularly shown detailed knowledge of mathematics and physics across several years of posting in NSG, are both more likely to be trusted as an authority on their respective topics than someone - however intelligent and articulate - who's been here for less than a month, states that they are an authority on philosophy logic, and that they should therefore be automatically be trusted as an authority on those topics.

Is this necessarily fair? Perhaps not. But to be accepted as an expert in the topic in which you're claiming authority, you'll have to spend the time, and put in the work, demonstrating that expertise, rather than simply stating that you have the expertise, and then asking everyone to accept that as fact.


And even then, you should be prepared for people to reject your expertise if it conflicts with their worldview; NSG is sometimes just like that.