First, in the speeches alone there's a sort of feeling that not only make those characters great and those particular episodes fantastic, but actually, I think, really highlight the difference in mood and outlook each stance has.



Picard's speech comes in an episode that has a ton of philosophical questions--not the least of which is the title question, what IS the measure of a man, ie, what defines us as living creatures and what are our rights, as such--but is also delivered in a manner that, while definitely sharp in tone, really exhibits a sense of idealism.

Which is what Picard as a character is--an idealist. As a captain on the show he's a lot like a college professor or a 19th century naval officer who's "well-bred and well-fed," and so Picard as a character, usually, takes to defending the rosier of options, he's a diplomat and a thinker, he actually IS the kind of person who would read philosophy and classical literature avidly--he actually keeps a copy of Shakespeare on his desk from which he'll quote from occaisionally...but with my inner dork showing, I digress--and I feel that this is somewhat comparable to the typical view and stance of those who would side with Picard and say that ends are NOT justified by means.

Picard's idealism allows him to see a picture of man as being essentially GOOD, very Locke-like, and that, in keeping with Locke, each person has "natural rights" which cannot be trampled upon by ANYONE, hence his reason for defending Data when the alternative--take Data part and create a slave-race of Datas some time in the future--could benefit the greater number...

For Picard, Locke, and those like them (on the whole, if you disagree or feel I'm unfairly lumping you in here, I apologize and don't hesitate setting me straight) GENERALLY the "greater good" does not apply OR, if it does, it can only apply AFTER those "natural rights" do. Picard certainly does act for "the greater good" many times throughout the show, but almost without exception he does so ONLY when this either doesn't conflict or conflict seriously with natural rights or when the situation is so dire and immediate that it can be argued that ethics don't apply.


Sisko, in contrast, is the polar opposite of Picard, in his tone and temperment and views and everything--they even have the two meet in the first episode of Sisko's show and the latter shows just how much he despises the former, and the former how irresponsible he sees the latter as being.

Sisko is anything BUT an idealist. He loses his wife (and lost her fighting the Borg while Picard was forced to work for them against his will, hence his hatred for Picard and blaming him somewhat for her death), he has to deal with crooks and cutthroats all day, for half of the show he's not only embroiled in a war but the leader of it on the front lines, a sort of Patton-in-space...that doesn't leave a lot of room for idealism and philosophical contemplation, let alone that Shakespeare Picard loves to quote.

As a result, just as Picard's speech is given sharply but with a distinct air of idealism, touching on a lot of philosophical and theoretical ideas, Sisko's is far more rough and focused solely on the action and its consequences--outright he says he lied and cheated...but that because of the potential consequences, namely getting help in that war from the Romulan people by essentially lying to them and allowing the deaths of a couple of men to aid that cause, he can live with doing this wrong, that it's justified, if not MORALLY, then PRACTICALLY.

I LOVE both speeches, both episodes, and both captains (and Kirk as well, of course, Kirk, Picard, and Sisko are great captains and characters) and I will admit that within the context of each episode I agree with both speeches and both men--Picard's argument, while idealistic and lofty, is made in a setting where that's called for, and Sisko's Machiavellian dealins are done in a situation where it may be the only way to win a bloody war.

But on the larger question of ends vs. means...

Sisko treats everyone equally, as just one more piece to get the result he needs--which I DON'T agree with philosophically; again, I hold people are individuals and must be treated as such, and so we cannot just assume that "the greater good" IS, in fact, the greater choice. Suppose to save 100 people you had to murder one person--and that person, you very well know, is Shakespeare or Mozart or Einstein or whatever great figure you will. Mozart IS worth more than 100 junkies or murders or, as controversial as this may sound, even "regular" people.

1 Mozart > 100 obiwanobiwans. ;)

The consequence of this thinking, however, is that if there IS a qualitative difference in people--and it's NOT inherrent or in the blood or genetic, I'm not talking about any racial superiority, THAT'S nonsense, I mean a gained qualititative difference, ie, molding oneself into the greatest composer of all-time--and these qualities are forever being acquired, adn thus people changing, then I'd submit there is no real "end" bot rather just means after means, people constant acting upon people.

I cannot see, ethically, the rationale behind killing a few to save many on the surface of it, as those few, while fewer in numbeer, might be greater in intelligence or mastery or genius or what have you. Picard is right, in my view, both times--we should certainly apply justice and extend rights equally--or as equally as logic dictates--but we cannot treat all beings the same, and so we cannot treat the metallic Data as we would most metallic objects, AS objects, but must treat him as a person.

Ironically enough, equality leads to inequality if this is not done--if all are treated equally then blanket judgments are made and the nuances of people are lost, and so they are treated unfairly and unequally in relation to their general quality of life.

If we want to discuss psychology instead of philosophy we could discuss your need to describe everything in terms of star trek. Your obsession with that show is growing like a balloon, and...something bad happens.

Anyway in theory, I'd say the ends never justify the means, that people should always be completely good all the time. Naturally in practice I don't hold myself, or anyone else to that standard, because nothing would ever get done. On the other hand, if you think only of the ends, you can justify just about anything. It's a very slippery slope from "misguided idealist" to "complete monster". (TVtropes will ruin your vocabulary.) I think perhaps the best answer lies somewhere between the two points.
If there were a way to take absolutely everything into account we might be able to find exactly where that happy medium lies to do the maximum amount of good. (I'm not necessarily saying we can calculate that exactly, like some philosopher did, something like measuring happiness in "hedons" or something? Is this ringing a bell obiwan?) And even to approximate that kind of "calculus of optimum goodness" we'd need perfect information of both the past present and future. Obviously impossible. So I suppose a certain degree of idealism is necessary, but then also a certain flexibility is necessary. However the problem with flexibility is that once you bend the rules once, bending them twice doesn't seem so bad, and three times, and four times and five times and so on. Where does that moral threshold of "too much" lie? Well I guess we could calculate that with our "calculus of optimum goodness" but we can't because it's impossible.
So yeah.

"(TVtropes will ruin your vocabulary.)"

True fact.

I'm of the idea that making a definitive statement about ends justifying means either way is a difficult thing to do. I think, on a mundane, inconsequential level, ends certainly can justify means. (Ask any man who's had an insecure woman ask if her dress makes her look fat. Lying doesn't look so bad, does it? ;) ) Or within the context of a game... I've played this board game once, it's set in 1900 Europe, and lying is rampant, and I can't quite place the name, but I swear it has something to do with this site... (Actually, on that note, a friend of mine who has an account here recently wrote a paper about ethics in games. If he happens to see this and feels like sharing, you might just find out, but I'm afraid I'll terribly misrepresent the idea.)

On a more consequential level, it seems to me that ends don't justify means. You could get into a whole 'nother tangent on utilitarianism here or take it a million different directions. I think there's a line where the negative consequences that are involved with the nefarious "means" to some end leave acceptable levels, and I don't know where it is. All I can tell you is that I'm hesitant to make a sweeping statement.

Great end to the year, though. I second Mafia on another point... you're quite the Trekkie there, Obi. ;)

Re: Bending rules repeatedly...

A scene involving my favorite "ends justify the means" philosopher.

"How did he die?"
"Your contact? Not well."
"Made you feel it did he. We'll you needn't worry, the second is..."
<two silenced shots from a P9>
"Yes. Considerably."

1. To be honest, I use Star Trek a lot for the same reason I use Shakespeare and Nietzsche elements a lot when I deal with literature: that being that when I started doing this sort of thing I just used my own ideas, but those being my own ideas, I naturally had to flesh those out the best I could, give support, give support to the support, and thus began the reputation--well deserved--for my being a "wall of text" writer.

Using Trek or Will or Nietz is really, for lack of a better word, a form of shorthand a lot of the time to get my GENERAL idea across faster so I can get things set up, out of the way, and more accessible, and then later when responding I can focus in on specific elements of what people say and then use more of my own concepts and the like, as I don't have to define this and what I mean by this and why and support as to why and support for that support and a general framework for that entire bit...and so on.

And...it's the holdiay season, and I'm BORED AS ALL EFFING HELL, I HATE taking a holiday, I'd much rather be back in class or, even better, actually doing a theatrical production again or working with a few folks on writing something, but the holidays bore me to tears, so basically...yeah, it's been a steady steam of my four "S's":

Sherlock Holmes/House, Sports, Shakespeare, and Star Trek.

But nice reverence, Leela. ;)

2. When did "idealist" become a TVtrope? That term has existed for quite some time, FAR before that glowing box ever did...to call a personm an idealist does not connect them with TV, the only connection here is Picard's a character from a TV show, but A. I've already explained that's half for fun and half as just a brief example of what I mean by the contrasting sides and B. As I said Picard was an idealist a la JOHN LOCKE, and that man is NOT the character from "Lost"--which I've never seen as it seems far too convoluted even for me--but rather the brilliant 17th century English politcal theorist and philosopher, I fail to see how my connecting him with Locke makes this a TVtrope, if aanything it's possibly a philosophical trope, and I could entertain an argument that perhaps the term "idealist" on the whole is too broad to really describe precisely what I would mean here, but I think it's clear enough, if it's not I can rephrase...

But in any event, again--not a TVtrope.

3. That DOES ring a bell...if you're referring to Epicureanism or Bentham. If you're referring to Mill, HE writes in "Utilitarianism" that he does NOT support hedonistic, physical pleasures and that hedonism is poor form for ethics, and we should embrace "higher" pleasures. We may debate if there actually ARE such things as higher and lower pleasures, but regardless, MILL was not a hedonist, if that's the bell that you would have me hear ringing.

4. So your position, if I understand correctly, is that we should have a calculated balance--as best as we can--of optimum goodness and a certain level of idealism?

Great--now...what's that mean?

What ideals are we talking about here; I said my ideals, Picard's ideals are those of John Locke, and so that's what *I* mean by idealism, a Locke-like system of morals, possibly Kantian if we were to go stricter.

What "ideals" make up your "idealism?"

What's more...

5. "People should always be completely good all the time."

And now for the most frustrating question yet--WHAT IS "GOOD?"

What's more, WHATEVER "good" is defined as in your system, if everyone acts COMPLETELY good and they do so ALL the time...

Are they really good? Does good exist? After all, there's then no bad/evil/wickedness to contrast it with and thust define it...unless your "good" is divorced from that form of morality? But if that's the case, what, then, is your point of contrast, evaluation, and determination for "goodness," if not on any moral basis--whichever moral system you wish--and if you mean "goodness" as something that's measurable, so we can achieve a maximum or optimum level of it, then we're left with the additional age-old question which has been shot back at Utilitarian forms of thought for a couple centuries now...

HOW, exactly, do you measure goodness? ESPECIALLY if it's not even defined yet what you mean by "good" from a pre-existing moral code, ie, the Judeo-Christian code.

And all of THAT belies the question of, if you DO mean "good" in a moral way, if there is such a thing as morality at all, since you have not given a system of moral code to attach your idea of goodness too--if that is, indeed, how you mean good, as being morally good--as if that's the case then I'll stand with the Nietzsche/Sartre point of view I typically hold and say that good and evil of a moral sense don't exist but are merely constructs, and if they ARE just constructs, and different people construct different and equally erroneous--or valid, depending on whether you want to see the philosophical situation half-full or half-empty--moral codes, I would then submit that any attempt to achieve a maximum or optimum level of moral good is impossible as these moralities are at best different and so incommensurable and at worst utterly at odds with each otehr and totally incompatible, thus making it impossible to determine any "optimum good" with "goods" that are apples and oranges.

So yeah ;)

^@Mafialligator

Oh no, I do completely see your point, and part of another problem with my approach is the fact that virtually everyone will be pursuing totally different goals in their attempt to do as much "good" as possible. You might be able to call it kantian or lockian or whatever, but virtually everyone has a different idea of what good is. And since everyone is entitled to their differing beliefs regarding what "good" is, they should all try and achieve those things as morally as they possibly can. I realize that makes no sense and is not a philosophically rigorous position. But I'm not a philosophy student. I'm an anthropology student.

I guess what I'm saying is that i personally believe this question is completely unanswerable. Personally I don't think there is such a thing as "good" or "bad", just "socially acceptable" or "socially unacceptable". Truth is, I don't think this is the kind of question philosophy is equipped to handle. Social science can provide us with much more useful answers with regard to human behaviour than philosophy can, because philosophy is so bogged down trying to engage with ideas that are centuries, and sometimes millennia out of date.

Hitler murdering your faggot jew grandfather in WWII would have been a justifiable end for obvious reasons.

This forum wouldn't get clogged up with your pseudo-intellectual drivel.

Look at the fucking brain surgeons that have responded to you so far(PE - I'm surprised at you).

...and before you PC morons jump all over me(sorry for the double post), I am NOT antisemitic. I just HATE anybody related to obi.

I love jews, muslims, gays, etc.

I am sickened by certain annoying individuals.

@ obi - I enjoyed your complete assessment of the issues in your first post - very thorough. I also agree with most of what you say about the subject (I don't share your beliefs, but everything flows logically and is sound, so I can't dispute it). What I do share the belief with is a combination of your discussion and Mafia's response, including your new question of "what is good," which I will not answer, but mull over with you later in my post.

@ Mafia - I, too, feel there needs to be some middle ground and what I explain next may have it for both of us (I hope).

So in this discussion we have the two extremes: The Idealist Locke (Picard), and The Pragmatist (Sisko). Both are dangerous when practiced to the extreme - it is unwise to be completely idealistic and optimistic in your hope that other humans will behave in the 'best' way possible all the time. It is also unwise to assume that everyone has their own ulterior motives and that you should feel no remorse in using what you need to use in order to achieve your own goals.

So, there are two things to add to this equation:
1. The 'History Writer' argument
2. Aristotle's Virtue Ethics

1. The History Writer is the old saying of the victor rewriting history to his advantage (forgive the paraphrasing). This is definitely a true statement to an extent. Let me first state that this does not mean that everyone must believe what you have written in history, and that you cannot change what actually happened, but over time, history is only the story that has been left behind to us through the years. So Picard, who may have been the great idealist, may be remembered throughout time as a loving, caring captain of his crew who loved him and followed him, he may not be remembered for grand acts like uniting the galaxy (not that this ever happens, just throwing out hypotheticals - don't wan't obi to throw a fit about my lack of Trek knowledge). On the other hand, Sisko, who people know to have been a mean and terrible person in his values (perhaps like Genghis Kahn?) will ultimately be remembered as the greatest captain ever who did what no captain before him could do (obi, insert plausible Trek example here :D). Neither is a bad way to be remembered, but they are different. Now back to the point.

Sisko is the one who we would look at as less moral (and in some eyes, therefore, less good) than Picard. However, if he can rewrite the history books based on his results alone, then he has justified his actions - not for the generation that watched him do it, but for the generation that only gets to read about it after the fact.

Ok, this does not mean I think Sisko wins out in this discussion, because besides the fact that I don't like that extreme of thinking, if he fails even once at the right time, his reputation is completely ruined and he never rewrites history. So along with this chance of greatness comes a larger chance of failure; he's like trading stocks on a day to day basis on the open market. Picard would be more like government bonds - a lot less risk over time. There is a lot more that can be argues about how one is remembered, but my basic point, again, is that you are looking at a low risk, low gain Picard, and a high risk, high gain Sisko in terms of public approval or just being considered a Good or Bad person to future generations.

2. The Virtue Ethics. I wish to avoid actually talking about the ethics, about their particulars, and about their value as moral principles or not. I want to talk about it's core belief that Aristotle lays out very early on - balance is key. He sates that every extreme has an opposite. You can be careless, or overcautious. Fearful, or brazen. Etc. Etc. He then states that the key to a good life, is to be able to walk the middle ground between these extremes, for it is sometimes important and good to be more bold than timid, and sometimes better to sit back and not speak out at all. This idea of the middle path is shared in many religions and philosophies, and is what Mafia was touching on (I hope).

So as to obi's question of 'what is good?' I say the good is in the temperance and prudence of a person to not live in either extreme, but to stray as necessary as well. So to bring this back to our Trekkie discussion: Picard and Sisko are both wrong, because they sacrificed too much to remain on a certain path. There are times when sacrificing a few is important to do, and right to do, and there are times when it is important to not sacrifice anyone (a la obi's Mozart case). There are times when the ends will justify your means both inherently and in judgment, but there is no way that acting in that manner for all things is right.

In many ways, this is what we all do day to day - we try to walk the middle path. As we discuss what is right and wrong we claim to know what is good and bad or at least come to a general conclusion on the matter, not because we want to spread our knowledge to others, but because we want to reaffirm in ourselves that we are good people. That we are doing the right things in life.

And hooray for maple! I love a good troll.

@Mafialligator:

But that's my point--if everyone has a different idea of what "good" and "bad" is, then how on earth can they possibly mesh them? For that matter, if the only qualification for something being good or bad is one's opinion I'd have to say that officially is the death knell of any sort of morality, as by that logic, intended or not, a charitable donation may be seen as just as good as people burning crosses on lawns or ramming planes into towers or making a (failed) Holocaust reference and threat--mapleleaf, you truly do make me almost miss Miro Klose, you are so much of a pathetic creature that I honestly cannot concieve of how anyone would possibly come to be both as unoriginal and pitiful in every possible aspect of their being...your licentious attitude and utter ignorance and sheer idiocy make me laugh and the fact that the human race still spawns such incredibly low life makes me cry for the future...oh, and if you hate my drivel there is the option not to look at it, but of course you, clearly, represent an earlier stage of human evolution, namely, before man became capable of rational or even comprehensible thought.

@mapleleaf:

...

I'd say read the above, but I'm honestly not sure you ARE capable of reading, I think you just recognize my name and start typing any random and attempted insult or slur you can think of...I'm acutally amazed you can spell "faggot," a six-letter word, I'm impressed you were able to type that out...

I frequently read the forum, but I very, very rarely comment, as a rule, and I even more rarely comment in your philosophy threads, Obi. No offense, it's just difficult to read through someone saying so little in so many words. ;-) But as a trekkie whose faithfulness probably surpasses even Obi's, I couldn't pass it up.

First, let me commend you on the selection of two excellent scenes from all of Star Trek. Those two episodes are probably in my top five favorite episodes, and "In the Pale Moonlight" is my favorite. That being said, the better example of Picard's stance is "Star Trek: Insurrection", which is my favorite Star Trek movie.

In a way, this needn't be reduced to two episodes, or an episode and a movie, as an analogy. The two entire series were representative of this issue, and it's exactly why, by leaps and bounds, DS9 is my favorite series.

In general, I feel TOS, and to a lesser, but still incredible, degree TNG, were overly idealized. In the 60's, the Star Trek dream was that in the future, we will all live in harmonious unity through the wonders of technology, everything will be colored in bright pastels and well lit, and people will have copious amounts of sex. There was nothing of real philosophical merit in TOS, precisely because they lived in a fantasy world that was completely unrealistic. This was much less true in TNG than TOS, and TNG had wonderfully philosophical episodes, like "The Measure of a Man". But that being said, TNG still existed in that unrealistic utopia that was Roddenberry's hippy dream.

But DS9 was a complete game changer. It came along, and showed that sometimes, life sucks. Sometimes, war is hell. Sometimes, your leg gets blown off and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. And sometimes, your continued existence and the idealism to which you so strongly cling are fundamentally incompatible. DS9 dealt with real emotional issues - suffering, loss, depression - like no other Star Trek show or movie had done before or has done since. TNG and TOS, and to a lesser degree VOY and ENT were superficial. DS9 was not. And that's what makes it fantastic.

That's one of the reasons I think your analogy is ultimately unfair. You can't say that Picard disagreed with Sisko, because he never came close to addressing the trials and tribbleations, if you will, that Sisko had to. You can't say Picard wouldn't have tricked the Romulans into joining the war. He never faced that question. Every TNG episode had a happy ending. Even when Yar died, (Which was pretty happy in and of itself...) in the end, they beat the Black-Goo dude, and they launch a beacon telling people never to go there again. Nice and neat, wrapped up in a single episode, and move on. Cookie cutter. That was never DS9. People died. Ships blew up. Entire fleets were lost. Casualty lists were posted. And what progress was made, was made slowly. Sisko and the crew of DS9 had to find happiness in times of great trial. They had to celebrate what they had, because what they had was limited. Picard and the Enterprise never had to face anything like that. Hell, Picard was assimilated into the freaking Borg, and that was wrapped up in a single episode. (If you don't count the first part, where he wasn't.) Sure, they mentioned it again, but they were brief and sporadic mentions at best. Anyway, my point is this: You can't be sure that Picard wouldn't have done the same thing in Sisko's shoes.

And also, I think it's unfair to characterize what Sisko did as "The ends justify the means". There's an element of that, but I think it's more fairly characterized as paternalism. If you're not familiar with the episode (Like anyone who would still be reading this Trek-gasm isn't) it's presented as almost certain that the Dominion would attack and quickly subdue the Romulans once the Federation fell. Therefore, Sisko was acting in the Romulans' self interest anyway, which is what makes it more fairly categorized as paternalism.

And for the record, my stance is that the ends rarely, but sometimes, justify the means. You can't create blanket rules like that. Things are not so black and white.

kislikd +1,
Maple -1,
Obi's response to Maple +1000

@ :) - much obliged

Also, Obi, I'd recommend a book called "The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Moral Values" for a good discussion of Good and Evil. I just finished reading it and it was fantastic, if a bit aggressive at times. His thesis is this: It's time to abandon the traditional notions of good and evil for a science of morality that can determine whether certain actions benefit or harm the general well-being of conscious creatures such as ourselves.

Isn't that Utilitarianism in a scientific nutshell? Most scientists tend to be Utilitarian anyway because of the empirical formula for determining the total good of an action. While the discussion is, I'm sure, good as you say, isn't that almost putting the blinders on to the rest of ethical theory?

Of course the ends justify the means. Getting caught up in having the perfect process/means usually has bad consequences. Imagine if Lincoln had sacrificed preserving the Union and instead focused on scrupulous adherence to the Constitution. We wouldn't be a United States right now. Constitutions are not suicide pacts.

Not really kislikd. You'd have to read the book. He doesn't really address collectivism vs individualism, other than mentioning that we obviously value our own interests more, and it's not wrong to do so. He would not have a problem with you putting your own interests ahead of others, provided it wasn't taken to the extreme. His point is that there are things that science can determine are good for *everyone*, and that we should do those things, and that as science and our understanding of our brains advances, we will be able to objectively determine the "right" thing more and more.

It's more of an attack on moral relativism and the religious right than anything.

"Imagine if Lincoln had sacrificed preserving the Union and instead focused on scrupulous adherence to the Constitution. We wouldn't be a United States right now. Constitutions are not suicide pacts."

You assume this is a bad thing. If you take out the whole slavery business, many (myself among them) would argue that the south had a better constitution. The war was fought over states' rights, and unfortunately, states' rights lost.

The South's constitution does not allow state autonomy on the question of slavery. It explicitly prohibited any state from limiting slavery - look at sections 4.2.1 and 9.4. "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed". The South was about the expansion of slaver power, not states "rights", whatever that means.

Furthermore, look at the Declarations of Secession. The very first concrete complaint is not about so-called "states rights", but about the fact that northern states were not enforcing a 'federal' law - the Fugitive Slave Act.

I don't know why there are so many apologists for the Confederacy. If the Confederacy had prevailed, the North American continent would have been in a constant state of siege and the European colonial powers would have returned with gusto.

"If you take out the whole slavery business"

The entire thing was about the slavery business, so you can't take it out. The civil war is meaningless if you take it out. This wasn't about states 'rights' at all.

But you didn't address the second point. Had the Confederacy won, France would have successfully gained control of Mexico with southern connivance. The British Empire would have seized NYC and control of our wheat supply, because the South could only have won if the British intervened on their behalf and because the British relied on our wheat exports. Massive troop movements would have taken place from Britain to British Canada. The British Empire would have had a much freer hand in Latin America. You would have had more wars between the CSA and USA because the CSA was explicitly expansionist and the Free Soiler movement wasn't going away anytime soon in the North - these divisions would have been exploited by European powers. Finally, the world would have seen that democracy could not survive, which would have been a boon to the anti-republican forces in Europe and the world over.

Better example, what if Jefferson had not bought the Louisiana Territory from France because of certain qualms about constitutional authority for acquiring territory. Had process purity prevailed, the US would have missed an easy chance to become a continental empire.

Sorry, but I'm not going to derail Obi's thread by discussing this.

The ridiculous notion that the Civil War was fought over some romantic small-government ideal is sheer historical revisionism; it was fought to maintain the power of the wealthy plantation-owning class. Two of the most significant changes to the Constitution involved the expansion of slavery and the prohibition against Federal spending for public works (i.e. canals and such). As most wealthy landowners already possessed land on the water ways, the latter served to weaken competition and preserve the advantages of the upper-class. Slavery needed to expand to maintain its popular support among the masses (though it only benefited the elites; in fact it hurt the masses significantly), so that "Southern amendment" again evinces the self-serving nature of southern secession. In addition, the mere possibility that Lincoln's election (which triggered secession) could infringe on a state's right to allow slavery is absurd. A constitutional amendment requires 3/4 of all states to ratify, which would have been an insurmountable total with all the slave states voting against such an amendment.
If anything, the Northern states' rights were violated, not the Souths' (Dred Scott, anyone?).The fact is that the South's behavior resembled that of a spoiled child. They had gotten EVERYTHING they had wanted for the last 50+ years, and now that something finally didn't go their way, they threw a temper tantrum. It reminds me worryingly of the current Republican party...

I, too, am sorry to hijack the thread, but I cannot stand to see any justification of the Civil War as some democratic revolution stomped out by that cruel tall man with the beard and top hat. Carry on with whatever was being discussed before.

Obi derailed his own thread with Star Trek and assorted incoherence. The Civil War is a much more interesting topic.