Guns, Guns Guns

MAD-4A wrote:Why do people not understand something so simple? OK, to explain...You don't have the right to do what ever you want to who-ever you want to. When you violate someone else's rights, you, by that act, give up your right to them. So, if you kill someone, then you have stolen their right to life and forfeit your own. Its that simple. Its like the old saying you cant steel from a thief, you cant go around steeling something from someone else and then complain when another person takes it from you.

The point is this: If the Declaration of Independence had any form of moral or legislative force to it, then capital sentencing could be appealed on the grounds of it violating the declaration. The declaration declares (ahem), in no uncertain terms, that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." There is nothing there that would allow the punishment of anyone by depriving them of any of the enumerated rights. They are defined as "unalienable", i.e. rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Therefore, under the terms of the Declaration of Independence, corporeal punishment is illegal. Imprisonment is illegal. Depriving one of ways and means to pursue happiness is illegal.

Thankfully, since the Declaration is not a legally or morally binding document, the US is not in a state of blissful anarchy.

MAD-4A wrote: The Treaty of Paris was (as it states in the title) A Treaty: (a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.) therefore it is an agreement between two already existing countries and (by definition) could not be what created the country in the first place – that was the Declaration of Independence, which created the country, the Treaty of Paris Ratified (made "officially valid") the country which the Declaration created. - simple cause and effect here.

Again, wrong: The Declaration of Independence did not create the US as a state. That's what the Articles of Confederation did.

Let me cite Wikipedia's citations at you:

Gulf, C. & SFR Co. v. Ellis, 165 US 150 (1897): "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty.... it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence."

Wills, Gary. Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, p. 25 (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002): "the Declaration is not a legal instrument, like the Constitution".

Cuomo, Mario. Why Lincoln Matters: Now More Than Ever, p. 137 (Harcourt Press 2004) (it "is not a law and therefore is not subjected to rigorous interpretation and enforcement").

In other words, you can use the philosophies that form the basis of the Declaration as a supporting text in interpreting the intent of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. But it is not, in any shape or form, a legally or morally binding document for citizens of the US. There is no way anyone could ever be indicted, let alone convicted, for violating it.

Daryl wrote: I agree with you that the great majority of USA citizens of the time (white, male, land owners) regarded all slaves with contempt. Times change and societies with them. Thus the whole of the reverence held regarding what these privileged gentlemen wrote at the time is misplaced in today's society.

No – your contempt is misplaced, they were working with what they had at the time – you think they could somehow come to the future, adopt YOUR values and then go back to their time? Duh, they were very “progressive” for their time and instrumental in forming the values you are so haughty with.

Daryl wrote:Their stance was to maintain their status quo,

If that were true they would not have rebelled against the crown, under which they acquired their wealth. They risked not only their wealth but their very lives to spread freedom to the middle and lower classes. That's why John Hancock signed his name so big & last - to say "here I am I'm making this stand & no mistaking it!" (without spelling it out with words, in a document!)

Daryl wrote:… they would be horrified to see the influence that a black woman like Oprah has nowadays.

that would be true of virtually any white person who ever lived prior to the 50’s

Daryl wrote:… northern states were actually much richer than the south,

no, they had more cash-on-hand with the general public, but that was through slave trade. Everyone wants to blame the south for slavery but it was actually forced on the south by the English Crown and the northern states. The primary slave trading operations were based out of New England, Boston, New York, New London. Those states have very little raw materials or farm land. They do however (or did) have huge tracts of oak forests which were cut down to build docks, (slave) ships and rum factories. The slave routes started there, the rum carried to Africa where they (most certainly did not wonder around the jungle with nets kidnapping poor innocent people) traded with local chieftains, trading barrels of rum for captured prisoners the locals had taken from neighboring tribes. (if anything – saving a lot of lives which would otherwise have been murdered in ritual sacrifices or genocides – much as modern day Africa – Hutu/Tutsi etc… nothing new) the slaves were then transported to the west (most ending up in Portuguese or Spanish hands and worked to death on their sugar plantations in South America & the West Indies) where they were traded for sugar that was then shipped back to New England for use in making rum – to be shipped back out and around again, this was the basis of the Northern economy. The very last slave ship of the route on record as being captured was during the middle of the war for southern independence and was carrying a Confederate…oh wait! no…a MASSACHUCETS state flag and registry! Some (the lucky few – relatively) slaves were purchased by southern plantation owners (90% of all slaves in the south were owned by only 10% of the population – much as wealth is today – slaves were a huge investment) there they produced Cotton and Tobacco – high price cash commodities at the time (along with the more labor intensive sugar – which had a much higher overhead due to the amount of labor needed) As I stated earlier, these were the “oil” of the day & the south was the “Saudi Arabia” of its day. The north did have a limited textile industry & with the shrinking of the slave trade they were trying to build this but England’s textile industry was kind-of the “Wal-Mart” of the day and were giving the southern cotton growers better prices, choking out the north. That’s why the federal government stepped in and started levying tariffs to try to force the south to trade with the north instead. THIS was the actual impetus of the war – not slavery – it was about money (sound familiar?).

Daryl wrote:…and the whole slavery/cotton economy was (unraveling) anyway?

it was (starting) – Europe and the north had abolished slavery - within their own states but (much as Canada did with probation in the 30s – brewing to smuggle into the US but not in Canada being allowed) the north allowed slave trade OUTSIDE their own states and the route continued –along with all their able-bodied slaves being shipped to the south for resale (what – you didn’t think they just freed them did you – only the old and infirmed which they couldn’t get anything for anyways were freed - duh) but with the advent of the industrial revolution, slavery would have ended by the end of the century with or without a war. It is much less efficient to force people to work (having to pay for their food and clothing and a place to live etc…) and still have to pay (a high wage) for someone to guard them as-well, and get poor performance from the worker (what are you going to do fire them? – no real motivation), than it is to simply pay someone a moderate/low wage to run a tractor/reaper etc… and get much higher performance levels from them (or your fired! – real motivation) but industrialization had not been able to advance that far yet & short sited people (on both sides as most are) didn’t see it coming. So the rich plantation owners were trying to protect their investment (as honestly anyone would).

(Long - sorry)

The E wrote:The point is this: If the Declaration of Independence had any form of moral or legislative force to it, then capital sentencing could be appealed on the grounds of it violating the declaration...i.e. rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Therefore, under the terms of the Declaration of Independence, corporeal punishment is illegal. Imprisonment is illegal. Depriving one of ways and means to pursue happiness is illegal.

again - no - as I just explained - the "Law" or "Government" does not "repeal" or "alienate" those rights from the guilty, the guilty alienated those rights from their victim and so, by default, waived their own claim to those rights. As I stated before, you cant complain that someone stole "your" bike you stole from someone else. If you kill someone, then you stole their life, you owe a life, you have to make restitution in kind by giving a life, and your life is the only one you have to give. so you must give your life.

The E wrote:Let me cite Wikipedia's citations at you:

wiki-no

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Those words you're using don't mean what you're trying to use them to mean.

I know exactly what they mean, Ratify: “making it officially valid”/

Yeah... that's not what ratification is when we're talking about government treaties or legislation. You're missing pretty much all the detail that actually matters in that definition. So congratulations for refuting your own claim to understanding it in the very same sentence you claimed you did understand it. If that was what ratification was then every single law that was ever passed would go through a ratification process.


Ratification is when a government has to, after the fact, approve an agreement that was executed by a representative who was authorized to negotiate but did NOT have the authority to give final approval over the contents of an agreement.


The Declaration of Independence for example, was drafted, signed, voted on, and ratified by the respective colonial governments which had to agree to it all over the course of 1776. It sure as hell was NOT ratified in Paris in 1783.

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:The Declaration of Independence was absolutely not "ratified" at the signing of the Treaty of Paris. The Treaty of Paris in no way whatsoever so much as referenced the Declaration.

It didn’t say it in the words –

Do you not understand how treaties work?

If it didn't say it, it didn't do it. Not that it would even matter if it did say it because the ratification of the Declaration was over and done with years before anyway.

You think everything has to be written down in every document? If that were so then, as my example before, every document would need and entire dictionary for a preamble, The Treaty of Paris legitimized the existence of an “independent” country where the British colonies had been,

Which, to repeat, it did so ALL BY ITSELF. It was absolutely independent, as a legal document, from the Declaration. The one did not depend on the other. If the US had risen up in rebellion without writing the Declaration the Treaty of Paris still would have done the exact same damn thing. the Declaration was irrelevant to the treaty.

MAD-4A wrote:

jchilds wrote:If the Declaration of Independence is morally binding, then how do the US incarceration/capital punishment rates and the phrase about the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness co-exist?

Why do people not understand something so simple? OK, to explain...You don't have the right to do what ever you want to who-ever you want to. When you violate someone else's rights, you, by that act, give up your right to them. So, if you kill someone, then you have stolen their right to life and forfeit your own. Its that simple. Its like the old saying you cant steel from a thief, you cant go around steeling something from someone else and then complain when another person takes it from you.

No, I understand that concept. The problem is how that concept co-exists with the word "inalienable" - it doesn't say inalienable unless you do something bad, it's presented as an absolute. A further question would then be if they are declared inalienable, but actually aren't, then why should the right to bear arms not be subject to the same accountability?

jchilds wrote:No, I understand that concept. The problem is how that concept co-exists with the word "inalienable" - it doesn't say inalienable unless you do something bad, it's presented as an absolute. A further question would then be if they are declared inalienable, but actually aren't, then why should the right to bear arms not be subject to the same accountability?

it is absolute and inalienable - "I can't 'take' it from you" is different from "you can’t give it up" I don't know how to explain that further. I can't come take your car from you without your permission but you can give your car to someone else.

MAD-4A, you seem to have me confused with someone else. I don't have fixed "values" that I am so haughty with. My comment about the declaration not including slaves or women was more about pointing out that the US founders meant very different things in their writing than a modern reader might appreciate; and thus that may apply to other parts of the documents.

I would imagine that a slave owner freeing an elderly or ill slave may well have not been a kindness. Bit like dumping an old pet cat or dog when the vet bills got high.

We still have slavery nowadays.
In our country there are organised instances where foreign workers are brought in and forced to work for nothing in brothels, clothing sweat shops and fruit picking by gangs who restrict their movement and steal their papers. The big difference is that this is illegal and condemned by society.

Thanks for the information on the relative wealth of the north/south, as I admitted I wasn't sure of what I had heard.

Don't be too confident is his "facts". He completely ignored the industrialization that was already beginning in the North that the South hadn't even begun. A lot of of the reason the South lost was because the North had more men and could better equip them (due to industrialization). Without the ability to overwhelm the South with manufacturing, the North wouldn't have won; the average soldier for the South was way more effective in combat than the average soldier for the North (especially during the early stages of the war).

Also he has come right up to the edge of claiming that the Civil War was not about slavery. If you look at the declarations of secession for most if not all of the Southern States you'll find that protection of formal, legal slavery was of paramount importance.

Also don't mistake Lincoln's positions, he flat out said that if he could win the war without freeing a slave he would and he was an advocate for sending all blacks to Africa (not back to where they actually came from, just back to the continent) to just get rid of the issue.

Daryl wrote:Thanks for the information on the relative wealth of the north/south, as I admitted I wasn't sure of what I had heard.

MAD-4A wrote:It didn’t say it in the words – You think everything has to be written down in every document?

For it to have any kind of legal status? YES!!!

MAD-4A wrote:If that were true they would not have rebelled against the crown, under which they acquired their wealth. They risked not only their wealth but their very lives to spread freedom to the middle and lower classes. That's why John Hancock signed his name so big & last - to say "here I am I'm making this stand & no mistaking it!" (without spelling it out with words, in a document!)

Suuureee...

MAD-4A wrote:that would be true of virtually any white person who ever lived prior to the 50’s

No. A majority of white persons living in USA both prior and post 50's.
In large part thanks to the 60s hippies, prejudices finally declined a lot.

African descent was rare in much of Europe, but that didn´t stop some from getting positions of great influence or authority anyway.

Very notable for example is Adam Petrovich Gannibal, Russian general born in the late 17th century in central Africa. His son Ivan Gannibal followed in his footsteps and also became a notable military commander in Tsarist Russia. And his grandson, just happens to be Alexander Pushkin. Ever heard him getting discriminated against? No.

Yet in USA, decades after even Pushkin was already DEAD, blacks were considered uncapable of being soldiers.

Seriously, even post ACW, USA kept "colored regiments" separately from the rest.
As late as WWII:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/93rd_Infa ... _States%29
The 93rd Infantry Division was a "colored" segregated unit of the United States Army in World War I and World War II.

While most European nations had left that more or less far behind.

MAD-4A wrote:no, they had more cash-on-hand with the general public, but that was through slave trade.

That´s an outright lie. Even counting slaves as part of Southern assets, the south just doesn´t measure up in any way.

Assets, infrastructure, industry, cash, doesn´t matter which is compared, the south ends up loosing, often pathetically so.

Only way to come even close to cutting away the gap in assets is by overvaluing southern farmland and estates owned.
And that´s just dishonest. Especially since it doesn´t even begin to account for how even the historically real value was partly a bubble economy that was at most 2 decades from bursting even if the war had never happened.
More realistic is actually to take the historical asset values and reduce them by around 75%.

Daryl wrote:My comment about the declaration not including slaves or women was more about pointing out that the US founders meant very different things in their writing than a modern reader might appreciate; and thus That may apply to other parts of the documents.

This is true, but you can't scorn them for that - they didn't come up with that attitude - it was handed down from 10's of 1000s of years, since before the beginning of homo-sapiens, we have only recently (in living memory) developed a social stigma against racism. Where do you think Orcs, Ogres and Elves come from? Past down from wars between Homo-sapiens (Elves) Vs. Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal - or Orcs/Ogres) through oral history. The lines blurred through kidnapping, slavery & "forced mating" mixing the gene pool. Ogres do still exist (Sylvester Stallone - not the best example but best on short notice Vs. Emilia Clarke)

Daryl wrote:We still have slavery nowadays.
In our country there are organised instances where foreign workers are brought in and forced to work for nothing in brothels, clothing sweat shops and fruit picking by gangs who restrict their movement and steal their papers. The big difference is that this is illegal and condemned by society.

We have that too (as do most modern societies - I saw a thing on Ukrainian girls having this happen and ending up in Turkey) The point was that the 3/5ths compromise was an anti-slavery step. the slave owners wanted to count all their slave as "population" the anti-slavers said "no, you claim they're not people so you can't count them." the 3/5ths compromise was just that - a compromise, a middle ground that made neither side happy. Ironically, if they had allowed full count of slaves, it likely would have staved off the confrontation till the late 1800's where the industrial revolution would have made Slavery inefficient and obsolete and the situation would have been run out of business and sorted itself out, without a war.