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.
But even if I think that; the lessons beyond just this one war is that losers of war almost always continue to suffer even after the war;levies are laid on leaders, but people face the consequences of those levies. And there is no doubt the north wanted to conflict inflict as much damage (punish) the "rebellious" states as possible.
I say no doubt because they stated in their own debates that the south needed to be punished.
So I will concede this. Attempting to force the south to remain in the union...are they even now in the same union? It was not a war between the states but a war to make the southern states succumb to the north.
Having said that I would have cheered the slaves overthrowing their owners. I would have also cheered the northern workers overthrowing their owners as well. Mean man that I am,.I just don't like owners. On the other hand, no Marxist reformation.
But hopefully, co-operative enterprises and value instead of profit based marketing.
But what I might have preferred from history, however, is not what happened in history. And to tell you the truth your article is head on correct...look around you today...bf skinner said negative reinforcement (punishment)might change overt behavior but it can harden covert malice and is not an effective form of reinforcement because results are frequently counter to intent.
"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?
While I agree the fourteenth was passed primarily to punish the southern, it offered certain liberties and has frequently been used to pursue substantive justice and to make standards of justice more uniform across the nation, whether one agrees with all court decisions is not the point; but I do have preference for a more uniform justice.
It also granted citizenship to black Americans, I think that was good.
But 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.
I try to support better options by looking at bad options from the past; but no option would ever be a solution to every issue humanity desires to fuss about, so I would never suggest any option would always be right and always beneficial for the sum of all humanity.
That said, I am unclear what lie the fourteenth amendment is based upon in your opinion, and I could probably not refute your interpretation, I may not agree, I don't know, but I couldn't possibly claim I have to be right because all of my reasonings are not infallible as are no one's...which leads us back to the very debate we are discussing...and should I say you're wrong, I would be wrong to you...but then if we can't accept the disagreement, then we can fight,and the loser is treasonous to the winner and gets punished and nobody heals and wrongs multiply.
And so I find Miss Monica writing inconvenient truths, but only by recognizing there are multiple facets to every side of the story and people suffer by being defeated; but victory can create times of even more suffering when the victorious proclaim righteousness from their victory.
And in such a sense, this was the reasoning for the amendment, but that reasoning was not necessarily a lie, but it might have not been the reasoning shared by even the majority in the north. A lie to be would imply an out & out falsehood. i.e., "There's no bread in the house and I see the loaf on the counter." Should I have been there then, would I have favored the amendment? I can't answer that and that can become an issue, so perhaps I am still too confused to make such an inclusive statement, were in such, and if you saw it as that, then apologies are in order. It was stated as an "I feel", and feelings are no more than that. Not truths and not lies.
I have both those books, and even the ones I referenced. I also have some rare copies the War Department published after the War for Independence. Those books published in the late 1800's may be filled with War activity, but also have demonized the South, resorting to some name calling. Nothing in reference to the insidious rampages of Sherman's ride to the sea, the hatred he had for SC, or Sheridan's destruction of the Shenandoah Valley. Nothing. No mention at all. I will quote from those books directly, after I get past a few more posts. Peace , brother.
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.
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.
If you would like to further respond, in order to be fair, since I switched the arena of this discussion, I will publish any reply on the same (my) sight. I do think it’s an important conversation and hope you will be able to present your argument i’m greater detail to my readers. Many probably will agree more with you than me.
Interesting article, thank you, Monica.
I am adding this page to my 14th amendment expose.
https://www.courageouslion.us/p/if-the-14th-amendment-wasnt-properly
I'm glad you found it to be informative enough to include it. Thank you!
We need to get out as much of the truth as we can. Mine was actually written by Thomas DiLorenzo in 2000
. The truth never gets old.
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.
But even if I think that; the lessons beyond just this one war is that losers of war almost always continue to suffer even after the war;levies are laid on leaders, but people face the consequences of those levies. And there is no doubt the north wanted to conflict inflict as much damage (punish) the "rebellious" states as possible.
I say no doubt because they stated in their own debates that the south needed to be punished.
So I will concede this. Attempting to force the south to remain in the union...are they even now in the same union? It was not a war between the states but a war to make the southern states succumb to the north.
Having said that I would have cheered the slaves overthrowing their owners. I would have also cheered the northern workers overthrowing their owners as well. Mean man that I am,.I just don't like owners. On the other hand, no Marxist reformation.
But hopefully, co-operative enterprises and value instead of profit based marketing.
But what I might have preferred from history, however, is not what happened in history. And to tell you the truth your article is head on correct...look around you today...bf skinner said negative reinforcement (punishment)might change overt behavior but it can harden covert malice and is not an effective form of reinforcement because results are frequently counter to intent.
"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?
While I agree the fourteenth was passed primarily to punish the southern, it offered certain liberties and has frequently been used to pursue substantive justice and to make standards of justice more uniform across the nation, whether one agrees with all court decisions is not the point; but I do have preference for a more uniform justice.
It also granted citizenship to black Americans, I think that was good.
But 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.
I try to support better options by looking at bad options from the past; but no option would ever be a solution to every issue humanity desires to fuss about, so I would never suggest any option would always be right and always beneficial for the sum of all humanity.
That said, I am unclear what lie the fourteenth amendment is based upon in your opinion, and I could probably not refute your interpretation, I may not agree, I don't know, but I couldn't possibly claim I have to be right because all of my reasonings are not infallible as are no one's...which leads us back to the very debate we are discussing...and should I say you're wrong, I would be wrong to you...but then if we can't accept the disagreement, then we can fight,and the loser is treasonous to the winner and gets punished and nobody heals and wrongs multiply.
And so I find Miss Monica writing inconvenient truths, but only by recognizing there are multiple facets to every side of the story and people suffer by being defeated; but victory can create times of even more suffering when the victorious proclaim righteousness from their victory.
And in such a sense, this was the reasoning for the amendment, but that reasoning was not necessarily a lie, but it might have not been the reasoning shared by even the majority in the north. A lie to be would imply an out & out falsehood. i.e., "There's no bread in the house and I see the loaf on the counter." Should I have been there then, would I have favored the amendment? I can't answer that and that can become an issue, so perhaps I am still too confused to make such an inclusive statement, were in such, and if you saw it as that, then apologies are in order. It was stated as an "I feel", and feelings are no more than that. Not truths and not lies.
I’m 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: https://www.courageouslion.us/p/was-the-civil-war-a-war-to-save-the
https://www.amazon.com/South-Was-Right-21st-Century/dp/1947660462
I have both those books, and even the ones I referenced. I also have some rare copies the War Department published after the War for Independence. Those books published in the late 1800's may be filled with War activity, but also have demonized the South, resorting to some name calling. Nothing in reference to the insidious rampages of Sherman's ride to the sea, the hatred he had for SC, or Sheridan's destruction of the Shenandoah Valley. Nothing. No mention at all. I will quote from those books directly, after I get past a few more posts. Peace , brother.
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.
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.
I have responded here: https://ken9yvonne.substack.com/p/answering-the-right
If you would like to further respond, in order to be fair, since I switched the arena of this discussion, I will publish any reply on the same (my) sight. I do think it’s an important conversation and hope you will be able to present your argument i’m greater detail to my readers. Many probably will agree more with you than me.