Julius Ratus

The northern states had or would soon have sufficient votes to outlaw slavery outright. The right of Congress to pass laws protecting human rights--even unenumerated rights--lies in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. If congress could have gotten a majority and overcome the inevitable filibuster, then I grant your point, but it would have been the Congress of the United States, not the northern States who would have done it. The status of Africans as human is an objective fact, and it implies that they are not and cannot be held as property. Thus all laws prohibiting kidnapping, torture, murder, and the rest would logically entail the abolition of slavery. Yes, it's true that some Southern aristocrats found nothing immoral with slavery--but they were pigs. It's also true that some Germans found nothing immoral about gassing Jews, and vast numbers of people found nothing wrong about confiscating the property of the 'bourgeoisie' and starving them to death--but the Nazis and Communists were pigs too. And pigs have no right to govern men. Once again, morality is subjective. The status of Africans as human is a scientific fact. Whether or not this implies that humans cannot be held as property only applies to our culture. Some cultures allow the ownership of humans. European culture allowed this in the past, and some cultures still allow it. Thus said, we are discussing laws, not morality/philosophy. I have said my piece and will add not more to the morality discussion. Firing on Fort Sumter was an act of treason. There was absolutely no Constitutional mechanism for South Carolina to secede. Lincoln had every right to have all the rebel commanders hung. The South had suceeded and had it's own government. The militia of South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter. I would consider this an act of war, not treason. A nation or a state that violates basic human rights--and slavery IS a violation of basic human rights--loses any moral sanction to govern. On this, see the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing human rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." A slave state is certainly a "Form of Government [that] becomes destructive" of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and thus for any American, "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." The Declaration of Independence calls for the People to overthrow abusive governement. Who says which governement is abusive? The People? The South thought that the Federal Govt. was abusive so they suceeded. What about the Indian Wars? Did not the Natives of this country have the right to overthrow a government that was abusing them, ignoring treaties, and invading their land?

I disagree with you here. If the war was about slavery, why did Lincoln not abolish slavery in territories loyal to the Union until after the war? "I would like to have God on my side but I must have Kentucky" comes to mind, though I am probably misquoting.

I would talk to Julius Caesar and Scipio Africanus, my favorite Romans. Discus tactics, and possibly play a game of Rome Total War. Perhaps I would have a good joke or three with Martial and Catullus. I would teleport Cicero and Marcus Antonius back with me and we all would hopefully have a more interesting election year!

Yes, they did. They had every legal right to outlaw slavery in the US, and they certainly had every moral right. In contrast, the South had no moral right whatever to keep slaves, and their secession was illegal. 1. What legal right did 'the North' have to abolish slavery? What pre-1861 law gave 'the North' that right? I recognize that Congress could make slavery illegal, but that would require the consent of Southern congressmen, who could have blocked (filibuster, etc) passage of the bill. I ask what right the North would have had to unilaterally abolish slavery, since by wording you are implying that they had such a right. If I misquote you, I apologize. 2. Morality being subjective, I don't think that the immorality of slavery can be used as an argument against it in the legal sphere. Obviously the Southern aristocrats did not find slavery to be morally wrong. 3. What pre-1861 law states that sucession was illegal. The States were joined together by free will pre-1861. After 1865 they were united by force of arms. 4. Is it moral to force territories to be part of a nation by force of arms? If it is not immoral, or illegal, would you say that China is justified in its actions in Tibet? Serbia in Kossovo? Russia in Chechnya? What about the North under Ho Chi Minh invading the south in the 60's and 70's to preserve the union of Vietnam?

So, who all has read the Sharpe series? I just finnished Sharpe's Company a few days ago and have been loving the series. Has anyone else read Sharpe? What are your opinions on the historical accuracy of the series?

Too many police out on the 17th. I stayed home and drank tea. On the 18th though...I went for German beer at the local Bierhaus. I had my fair share of Konig Ludwig.

I haven't read any good ancient history books lately. I just finnished Sharpe's Company, part of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series. They are all excellent books, and are well researched, with Cornwell visiting many if the places he describes in the books. When the parts are not historically accurate he mentions so in the back of the book, and tells what really happened.

i haven't read any good ancient history books lately. I just finnished Sharpe's Company, part of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series. They are all excellent books, and are well researched, with Cornwell visiting many if the places he describes in the books. When the parts are not historically accurate he mentions so in the back of the book, and tells what really happened.

Vale Imperator.

Your birthday gives us a bit of joy, on this otherwise somber and solemn date. I'll drink one for you, MPC.

I have always been a Caesar fan, and agree that he is probably Rome's most famous son. More and more, as I read and study his life, Africanus is becoming my favorite Roman, though.

Unfortunately for this country, everyone was jut too wound up and didn't forsee the consequences that the war would bring with it. I fully believe that the Civil War fundamentally changed America, and for the worse. I do not like the idea that the Federal govt can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants with We the People having very little real recource. Alas, if only everyone would have taken a chill pill and settled down. If they had all waited a few decades for the steam tractor to come out, it would have killed slavery as fast as any Amendment. Who would want to keep, feed, house, and guard a slave, when a tractor does more work for less cost. Economics would have ended slavery sooner or later.

AVE TRIVMVIR!

By freeing the Confederacy's slaves, he quickly erased millions of dollars of the slave holders' capital and thereby impoverishing the enemy. Lincoln didn't free the Confederacy's slaves. He only freed the slaves in States loyal to the Union, or in conquered areas. By the time the 13th Amendment was ratified, the CSA had ceased to exist. If I give my opinion on the Civil War I will come off sounding like a hot-head who can't let things go. If I were to write with a cool and level sate of mind, I would rewrite what PP wrote in his first post. Otherwise, God save General Lee.

First of all the no wine rule was what he disliked. The no wine rule kept him from converting to Islam (the Bulgars were Islamic and sent emmisaries to him). Jews are allowed to drink. There are some Kosher wine companies (Manneschevitz and Mogen David are two. Both wines are cheap, taste ok, and give you a wicked hangover).

Being a secessionist at heart, I am putting in my App for Citizenship in Ursusland, provided that my 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights carry over. On topic: this is going to be a difficult election. I really can't tell the difference between the candidates, they all come from the same stock. I might put my vote where my mouth is and vote for a 'third party' candidate. I might vote for McCain if it looks like Hilarbama is going to get elected. All our options suck.

The word for deification is 'apotheosis'. Poor old Claudius got a satire written about him called 'Apocolocyntosis Divi Claudii', which means the Pumpkinification of the Divine Claudius. I always found that a funny name.

I would like to see a Marius vs Sulla show/movie, done by Heller.

These 'yeomen' are probably lictors.

Had to get your stab in at poor dead Julius. MPC will be rolling around giggling here in a couple of weeks...

We were told in class that a gigantic schlong was often considered a sign of barbarism.

When Vladimir tried to find a new religion for his people, the Khazars were one of the groups he looked to. The whole circumcision thing, and no pork, turned him off.

My father convinced me to take High School Latin (I'm glad I did), and so I wanted to learn more about the Romans before class started up. So I started playing as the Romans in Age of Empires. Eventually I learned more about them and loved them more and more. A decade later I still find them every bit as interesting as I did when I was 14. When it comes down to it, the Romans were the badasses of the Ancient world. They were not as brutal as the Assyrians, but did it with more pizzazz. They were nigh unbeatable at their peak. They also made the world they conquered a better place. All in all, I enjoy their culture, their language, their history, and their military.

Ave, from your Lictor, JR!