I am suggesting that the aftermath of the war of northern aggression enabled the "new deal", the "great society" and a host of other such failures that result when individuals cede to the state.
I'm always torn. Debating, and therefore correcting them, gives them recognition. Not debating them, gives them unfettered access.
Was the federal government strengthened by the Civil War? Of course, but it was strengthened in reference to the possibility of secession and the lack of a need to appease states to prevent the same. However, the legal climate that resulted in the ceding of power to the federal government that resulted in the feds assuming powers it never had before did not happen for decades and decades (about 50-70 years) after the Civil War and there is not a direct causal link between the two.
I think one might have a few other, more mature choices. One might agree, or disagree. If the latter, one might choose to present a compelling arguement based in facts, or just ignore it.Should one laugh or should one cry at that statement?
I ask yet again, is the strong and successful central state we tolerate today a champion of economics? Of Liberty? If so, how so?
Yet again the matter of the war of northern aggression, state sovereignty, and the power of secession reserved to the sovereign states is sidetracked to the weeds of slavery.
Meanwhile, the leviathan central state continues its over reaching and expansive growth into matters beyond its boundaries.
I really do think you're blaming the wrong thing.
Lincoln was faced with an almost impossible situation and he handled it better than could be expected in anyone's wildest dreams. Was he perfect? Of course not. Coming to understand Lincoln better, as I have over the past year or so, has also helped me understand the reality of our country and its politics.
Regardless of what the Constitution agreed to or did not agree to regarding slavery, slavery is indefensible by anyone who believes in natural rights. The Declaration of Independence gives it the lie with these words:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
Certainly the slaves themselves were not required to follow the Constitution that legitimized their slavery. They did not consent. Natural rights presuppose that someone coming to the aid of another whose rights are being violated is yet also a human right.
Even with all that, the Constitution did not need to be trumped. The confederates started a war rather than attempting to leave the Union according to anything coming close to legitimacy. And they left for slavery, period. Read each confederate state's declaration for leaving. The only "state's right" they were interested in was that of slavery.
Unless you believe that the Constitution can legitimize slavery, you have no leg to stand on. If you do believe the Constitution can legitimize slavery, then you are no friend of freedom or natural rights.
dross; said:Unless you believe that the Constitution can legitimize slavery, you have no leg to stand on. If you do believe the Constitution can legitimize slavery, then you are no friend of freedom or natural rights.
What is your opinion regarding abortion?
What is your opinion regarding abortion?