nope.

"The institution of African slavery, as it existed in about half the State of the Union, and the contests pervading the public mind for many years, between those who desired its curtailment and ultimate extinction and those who desired additional safeguards for its security and perpetuation, culminated in the effort, on the part of most of the States in which slavery existed, to separate from the Federal government, and to resist its authority. This constituted the war of the rebellion, and whatever auxiliary causes may have contributed to bring about this war, undoubtedly the overshadowing and efficient cause was African slavery."

[Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36]

you're welcome.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4253901)

"you're always pwn3d, buttmunch. you're dumb, too."

shut the fuck up and stop trying to seem smart.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4253991)

*EDIT* shall I continue?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257111)

"The idea that liberals "approve" of or "excuse" Muslims is nonsense for several very simple reasons. First, no one in their right minds, liberal or not, condones the sort of treachery we've seen various Muslim fundamentalists perpetrate in the last several days with the french riots and in the last several years with 9/11 and the chaos in Iraq. Saying or implying that libs do such things is indicative of the sort of disingenuous politics conservatives seem to have built their party on. liberals don't do that. second, conservatives seem to believe that everything happens in a vacuum. Not so. people don't riot for no reason. the riots and other upheavals are simply manifestations of a marginalized people's discontentment with their socio-political situations; situaions they feel powerless to change."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257196)

Main Entry: 1ex·cuse

Pronunciation: ik-'skyüz, imperatively often 'skyüz

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): ex·cused; ex·cus·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French excuser, from Latin excusare, from ex- + causa cause, explanation

1 a : to make apology for b : to try to remove blame from

2 : to forgive entirely or disregard as of trivial import : regard as excusable <graciously excused his tardiness>

3 a : to grant exemption or release to <was excused from jury duty> b : to allow to leave <excused the class>

4 : to serve as excuse for : JUSTIFY <nothing can excuse such neglect>

--------------------------------------------

and, explain:

Main Entry: ex·plain

Pronunciation: ik-'splAn

Function: verb

Etymology: Middle English explanen, from Latin explanare, literally, to make level, from ex- + planus level, flat -- more at FLOOR

transitive senses

1 a : to make known b : to make plain or understandable <footnotes that explain the terms>

2 : to give the reason for or cause of

3 : to show the logical development or relationships of

intransitive senses : to make something plain or understandable

- ex·plain·able /-'splA-n&-b&l/ adjective

- ex·plain·er noun

- explain oneself : to clarify one's statements or the reasons for one's conduct

-----------------------------------------------

First, they are not synonyms. Don't conflate them. Second, I did not "justify" the rioter's acts. In fact, all I did was "to give the reason for or cause of" their behaviors.

"people don't riot for no REASON." This statement implies that there *are* REASONS, reasons that the rest of the passage attempts to "give."

THIRD, there was NO "apology" here. Indeed, I made sure to TELL YOU that these acts of "treachery" were NOT free from blame.

"First, no one in their right minds, liberal or not, CONDONES the sort of TREACHERY we've seen various Muslim fundamentalists perpetrate in the last several days with the french riots."

Now, I don't find it exciting or entertaining or particularly productive to sit here and explain to you people what simple English words mean; but I really do hope this helps.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257329)

If I said a serial murderer was only a murderer because he was beaten as a child, and was sexually deprived, what would you call that? An explanation?

The more one tries to turn a perpetrator of violence into a victim, the more an explanation begins to resemble an excuse. That is what your "explanation" did, Sean. To a liberal mind, where nobody is ever truly accountable for anything, even the most obvious excuse is probably an "explanation."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257370)

I refuse to believe that this is the same person that I argued with several days ago on the con law thread. No.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257488)

You are free to contine to proffer "explanations." Don't be mad, however, when the American people reject such explanations as the excuses and justifications they are. The American people believe in accountability and personal responsibility, your "explanations" notwithstanding. Describing terrorists and rioters as victims responding inevitably to their circumstances justifies and excuses their actions, Sean.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257914)

"You said they felt "powerless" and were only responding to their preceived socio-economic situation. That is an excuse, bucko."

Wait, so saying that one is "powerless" implies that you are excusing their behavior? If I say, "Tom FELT powerless to stop the invasion of Italy, so he decided to kill the President," am I excusing him of blame? Or am I "giving" the "reason" (that he felt powerless) for his actions? LOL

"If I said a serial murderer was only a murderer because he was beaten as a child, and was sexually deprived, what would you call that? An explanation?"

Oh my.

"The serial murderer wasn't WRONG for killing that girl because, after all, she had a horrible personality." This, "bucko," an EXCUSE. In essence, this is saying that this killer should not be held responsible for killing the woman because the killing was justified.

From the dictionary definition of excuse: "2 : to forgive entirely or disregard as of trivial import : regard as excusable <graciously excused his tardiness." In the second example, the implication is that, although the [he] was indeed tardy, the [professor] decided not to attach to his actions the same level of blame that would be attached to another person's actions in a similar or different situation.

"The serial killer killed that lady because he thought she was a loose woman; and he didn't think loose women should be allowed to live." This is an EXPLANATION. The "reason" "given" here is that his "perception" of the woman (his "perception" of the situation) was that the victim was unfit to live, and, therefore, had to be killed.

Again, I find nothing satisfying about teaching you the meanings of basic English words. Your seem to be having extreme difficulty discerning the intent and meaning of particular phrases and the logical inferences that flow from them. In this particular instance, you've confused a "justification" for an "explanation." They have distinctly different meanings and are not interchangeable (or synonymous). An "excuse" implies that there exists an objective measure the reference to which must be undertaken in determining the blameworthiness of the act or thing in question; and, by reference to that particular objective measure, the act or thing is excusable. An "explanation," on the other hand, does not purport to remove the thing being explained from blameworthiness; rather, it attempts to "give" "reasons" why the particular thing occurred or illuminate the logical path that the particular act or event took to reach effectuation.

Read more carefully.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4258045)

Please do...the self PWN4G3 is endlessly entertaining.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257161)

"Ironic" is obviously too big of a word for you.

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&mc=19&forum_id=2#4257130

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257086)

western liberal ideals never can get any credit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4253953)

best,

Sean

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4254056)

I say we burn them both at the stake.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257089)

By the leaders?

By the reasons given?

By those who fought it?

EDIT: Sean Hannity, you fucking TTT, answer this question.

EDIT: Hey, XOXO Champion, answer this question...

EDIT: Still waiting for my ownage...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257100)

but why cite the Slaughter-House Cases?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257140)

WHAT?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257156)

Tragically, slavery was *the* linchpin of the southern economy. 90% of southerners fighting in the war, probably more, did not own slaves. Northerners who volunteered because they found slavery morally reprehensible were in the vast minority as well. So yes, slavery was probably the underlying reason for the war, but it's flawed to say we fought the war to free the slaves.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257202)

I said:

"the overwhelming cause of the civil was the immorality and blatant evil of slavery"

then you said:

"The war was fought for many reasons, not just because the north thought slavery was "evil".

It doesn't take a semantic constructionist to conclude that these two statements are not inconsistent. Again, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misspoke.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257399)

You wrote: "no greater lie is raped into the minds of our maturing youth than the idea that the civil war was not fought over slavery."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257514)

Slavery was more than just economics, but it was tied to the southern economy. It's "tragic" that history unfolded in such a way that one group's subjugation upheld the livelihood of an entire region. Your response implies that I've reduced slavery merely to the economic dimension only, but I was only trying to explain that the question is hardly one of either/or. I would argue that if the economic dimension of slavery were not present (say, if slaves were kept for novelty and not for their economic benefits), then the war would not have occurred as rapidly, nor would it have been fought with much vigor. It doesn't damage your moral self-righteousness to concede this point.

Edit: Saw your response to the other responder. Your initial response did make it seem like you were harping on the immorality and blatant evil, mostly because the sentence was poorly constructed when you wrote it. I see what you're trying to say now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257522)

Again, saying this is fine but there is an obvious tension between this statement and the fervor which went into enacting the 13th and 14th. Why not just *simply* ban slavery then? Why supplement the 13th with the moral thrust of the 14th? Your post leaves this largely unanswered.

And no, the sentence wasn't poorly constructed. To the extent that you found it unclear, please don't try to blame it on my inartful drafting abilities. 1) I don't edit, and 2) I choose my words very carefully. In other words, I *mean* what I say.

"I would argue that if the economic dimension of slavery were not present (say, if slaves were kept for novelty and not for their economic benefits), then the war would not have occurred as rapidly, nor would it have been fought with much vigor. It doesn't damage your moral self-righteousness to concede this point."

There is no "moral self righteousness" here. And you're not giving the North enough credit. Slavery, as an institution, was directly at odds with the Preamble. Abe, even in his "lukewarm[est]" days, would not let this be. In any case, during those times, there was no real political reason to add as many moral overtones to the Proclamation as he did. Blacks weren't owed anything by the North. Why the pomp and circumstance? Why wasn't the 13th enough?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257678)

War is always fought "vigorously." No Commander in Chief tells his army "Ok, don't be too rought out there; this war isn't that important."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4258087)

By the leaders' motivations?

By the reasons publicly stated?

By those who fought it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257318)

Wait, haven't I been arguing this whole time that it wasn't? What the hell?

"NEVER did Abe Lincoln define the Civil War in terms of eradicating slavery. See, for example, his framing of the emanicaption proclamation as a military necessity. Average Southerners thought they were fighting for state autonomy and Sourthern culture (which was in large part a racist culture as well). Most average northerners felt they were "preserving the Union."

Don't be glib. The political climate at the time was not such that Abe could just say "Slavery is bad. This is why we fought." The flawed assumption in your post was that Abe *could* do such a thing if he actually wanted to. He couldn't. It doesnt take an expert on the "history of war" to realize this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257748)

Let's look at the Iraq War.

Stated reason: WMD

Real reason: Take out Saddam, promote democracy, & WMD

Right reason: subjective

Now, what was the war's purpose? One could use the stated reason, the real reason, or the right reason (presumably democratization or some such). Can't one argue the war's purpose is any of these, or a combination? Think about the Civil War in this way as well. What do you think?

Edit: This is an interesting conversation (though your last response seems to be confused). I have to get out of here for now. I will try to remember to post here again tomorrow. Goodnight.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4257847)

2. On the Privileges or Immunities Clause: the case cites Justice Bushrod Washington running circuit and not speaking as a Supreme Court justice. Using vague clauses, such as stating that the clause "embraces nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted," the Court concludes with a sort of vague statement that leaves the PoI clause empty. In fact, "But lest it should be said that no such privileges and immunities are to be found if those we have been considering are excluded, we venture to suggest some which owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws." The only Privileges or Immunities, then, seem to be identical, and thus superfluous, to Article IV section 2 clause 1.

3. On the Due Process Clause: The Court concludes that "under no construction of that provision that we have ever seen, or any that we deem admissible," the Due Process Clause does not apply to the facts of the case. Sadly, the Court does not discuss what constructions those are, and insteads concludes with a trite truism.

4. On the Equal Protection Clause: "In the light of the history of these amendments, and the pervading purpose of them, which we have already discussed," the Court finds that the clause must have been intended to protect freed slaves. Of course, here the purpose shell game is played once again.

I don't think that substantive due process exists, that the equal protection clause has a sliding scale of rights, or that the Thirteenth Amendment applies to butchers. I do think, however, that the Court in this case filled its opinion with sloppy reasoning and irrefutable propositions in reaching its conclusory conclusion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=295407&forum_id=2#4259224)