The Gettysburg Address

[jamil]

I see the connection... calling it a right to choose when what you are choosing is to end a life is a lot like calling it state's rights when the right you want is to own slaves. I can only presume from your arguments that you are pro-choice and believe abortion to be the ultimate expression of liberty from government intrusions. Correct, or no?

I don't think that was the point. He's calling out the people who call for state's rights on abortion but do not support states' rights to legalize slavery. Likely though, he wouldn't choose my wording.

My answer remains, when does life begin? The answer to that question demystifies his question.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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.

1. The South was the aggressor.

2. If state sovereignty was an issue, why couldn't a state leave the CSA or why could not a county leave the State?

3. Slavery was The Cornerstone of the CSA. Southern leaders talked about it before, antebellum Southern popular culture wrote books about going to war to defend slavery. Southerners went overseas to conquer foreign countries to institute slavery. Slavery was in the Constitution of the CSA. Slavery was in the Declarations for Secession that hang today in the state museums of Southern states. Where the land was flat and able to produce cotton, indigo, tobacco, there were CSA troops. Where the land was bumpy and unproductive there were Southern Union troops.

 

[rambone]

It honestly doesn't matter why the South wanted to leave. They had the power to leave and the moral right to leave, and they left. Bye! Get over it.

If they want to institute a racist, anti-liberty, welfare-loving, communist, evil government -- its irrelevant because they no longer consented to live under the USA government. Its not the USA's business from that point on.

And from a pragmatic standpoint, waiting for a peaceful solution would have been far preferable to 800,000 dead Americans. There's no getting around that.

 

[lj98]

They had the power to leave and the moral right to leave

This is, and always was debatable. The US was created from a compact between the various states and, arguably, can only be dissolved via mutual agreement between the states.
Also, I'm not so sure I like the idea that a single generation of morons (let's use that term to refer to the confederates) can simply decide to take their ball home (which is what secession is) and essentially dissolve a nation.

far preferable

This depends upon your point of view. I'm sure that those kept in bondage in the Confederate States would not be too keen on simply waiting for the Confederacy to fall apart (a 19th-century form of containment).
As an aside, by this reasoning, then only 220,000 Americans died in the war. The rest were simply confederate fatalities.

 

[dross]

It honestly doesn't matter why the South wanted to leave. They had the power to leave and the moral right to leave, and they left. Bye! Get over it.

If they want to institute a racist, anti-liberty, welfare-loving, communist, evil government -- its irrelevant because they no longer consented to live under the USA government. Its not the USA's business from that point on.

And from a pragmatic standpoint, waiting for a peaceful solution would have been far preferable to 800,000 dead Americans. There's no getting around that.

By what right did they fire on a U.S. fort? The U.S. government had a responsibility to each individual in the South, not just the legislature. The southern legislatures had no power to suddenly dissolve the citizenship of U.S. citizens. It takes due process to join, shouldn't there be due process to leave?

From a pragmatic standpoint, 800K dead Americans is a tragedy, but what about the 4 million who were enslaved? Do they not count? How long should they have had to wait?

 

[hornadylnl]

By what right did they fire on a U.S. fort? The U.S. government had a responsibility to each individual in the South, not just the legislature. The southern legislatures had no power to suddenly dissolve the citizenship of U.S. citizens. It takes due process to join, shouldn't there be due process to leave?

From a pragmatic standpoint, 800K dead Americans is a tragedy, but what about the 4 million who were enslaved? Do they not count? How long should they have had to wait?

They should have had to wait infinitely if the legislature didn't change it. God forbid the courts step in to end it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They should have had to wait infinitely if the legislature didn't change it. God forbid the courts step in to end it.

But the courts had been supporting it and they're the final arbiters of what's Constitutional and what's not...or so I'm told.

 

[rambone]

Also, I'm not so sure I like the idea that a single generation of morons (let's use that term to refer to the confederates) can simply decide to take their ball home (which is what secession is) and essentially dissolve a nation.

I don't know why "one nation, indivisible" is such a virtue. People should be able to govern themselves, right?

To say that people cannot leave the union, under penalty of death, is not something I can support. Even if they wanted to leave for stupid reasons.

As an aside, by this reasoning, then only 220,000 Americans died in the war. The rest were simply confederate fatalities.

The USA did not recognize the CSA's right to exist. They were fighting for forced-preservation of the union. The Northern perspective necessarily grants that the dead were all Americans -- their own countrymen.

 

[poptab]

Didn't you guys know? Living in a [sic] republic is so important to your soul that it is better to kill you than let you live unmolested.

 

[rambone]

By what right did they fire on a U.S. fort? The U.S. government had a responsibility to each individual in the South, not just the legislature. The southern legislatures had no power to suddenly dissolve the citizenship of U.S. citizens. It takes due process to join, shouldn't there be due process to leave?

If Southern U.S. citizens wish to live under the U.S. government, they'd have to move to a place where the U.S. government reigned. They'd have to emigrate to the North. The U.S. government had an obligation to welcome them. There is no obligation to crush and kill states that had legislatively agreed to secede. The land controlled by the CSA became outside the scope of the USA, forts included.

Due process to leave was handled when the legislatures declared their sovereignty. If people waited around for their former masters to grant them permission, they be stuck indefinitely.

The Declaration of Independence was due process to leave Britain. The American Revolution was an act of secession. How concerned should Americans have been with all the British forts and claims that rested on the newly-created U.S. soil? The message was clear: get out.

From a pragmatic standpoint, 800K dead Americans is a tragedy, but what about the 4 million who were enslaved? Do they not count? How long should they have had to wait?

The slaves should have to wait zero (0) days for their freedom. And now reality sets in. The institution existed for millennia and other nations had demonstrated that it was possible to find peaceful political solutions, short of mass slaughter and war. It was absolutely possible in the USA.

In the meantime, I see nothing immoral about the underground efforts to free slaves. Take the fight directly to the slaveholders. That makes a lot more sense than wiping out a bunch of conscripted farmboys who had nothing to do with slavery.

 

[Henry]

Rambone is dead on zero.

 

[indiucky]

That depends on when you believe an embryo becomes a person.

Conception...Condoms are not for preventing 'embryos" from forming...They are for preventing Humans from forming...It's just science...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Conception...Condoms are not for preventing 'embryos" from forming...They are for preventing Humans from forming...It's just science...

Sometimes things really are as simple as that. At whatever point of gestation one chooses to believe the growing child becomes a human, what was it 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001 femto-second prior?

 

[Dead Duck]

Slavery??

I thought the Civil War was started because of the OC/CC Debate.


























I didn't know INGO had so many southern slave owners on here. You guys know that John Deer now sells the 7760..

 

[rob63]

If Southern U.S. citizens wish to live under the U.S. government, they'd have to move to a place where the U.S. government reigned. They'd have to emigrate to the North. The U.S. government had an obligation to welcome them. There is no obligation to crush and kill states that had legislatively agreed to secede. The land controlled by the CSA became outside the scope of the USA, forts included.

Please explain exactly why Southerners would have to move if they didn't like their new government? Why can't they secede? If a state can decide to secede, why can't a county, a city, or an individual?

Due process to leave was handled when the legislatures declared their sovereignty. If people waited around for their former masters to grant them permission, they be stuck indefinitely.

Exactly! The slaves in the CSA would still be waiting for their masters to grant them permission to leave.

The Declaration of Independence was due process to leave Britain. The American Revolution was an act of secession. How concerned should Americans have been with all the British forts and claims that rested on the newly-created U.S. soil? The message was clear: get out.

Agreed. However, the colonists never tried to claim they didn't start the war. They trumpeted it as the "shot heard 'round the world."

The slaves should have to wait zero (0) days for their freedom. And now reality sets in. The institution existed for millennia and other nations had demonstrated that it was possible to find peaceful political solutions, short of mass slaughter and war. It was absolutely possible in the USA.

No need to repeat everything that has already been said, but the CSA was formed solely for the preservation of slavery. It did not matter if Lincoln or anybody else wanted to end slavery peacefully, the South wanted no part of that. The fact that slavery was ended peacefully elsewhere was due to having a government or religion powerful enough to do it that was also not run by people with a vested interest in the institution. Slavery was not ended ealier in the US because of the combination of a weak central government that was also dominated by slave-holders. The CSA was designed specifically to keep it that way.

In the meantime, I see nothing immoral about the underground efforts to free slaves. Take the fight directly to the slaveholders. That makes a lot more sense than wiping out a bunch of conscripted farmboys who had nothing to do with slavery.

So you let them go form their own country in the interest of keeping the peace, and then you commit an act of war by interfering in their internal affairs once they are a separate country?

 

[MisterChester]

Who calls it the war of northern aggression anymore? A 1950's History schoolbook from Alabama? Give me a break.

 

[rambone]

So you let them go form their own country in the interest of keeping the peace, and then you commit an act of war by interfering in their internal affairs once they are a separate country?

I was talking about individuals. Not state action and war.

 

[poptab]

Please explain exactly why Southerners would have to move if they didn't like their new government? Why can't they secede? If a state can decide to secede, why can't a county, a city, or an individual?

The answer is simply this: they can and should for any reason or none.

If we all believe that the only true right to govern is derived from the consent of the governed then the consent of everyone is required.

 

[MisterChester]

The answer is simply this: they can and should for any reason or none.

If we all believe that the only true right to govern is derived from the consent of the governed then the consent of everyone is required.

Well, there is no legal process for secession. The constitution is silent on the matter, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that states cannot leave the union. Legally speaking the CSA was never its own separate and sovereign nation, just states in armed rebellion.

 

[poptab]

Well, there is no legal process for secession. The constitution is silent on the matter, and the Supreme Court has already ruled that states cannot leave the union. Legally speaking the CSA was never its own separate and sovereign nation, just states in armed rebellion.

How is this relevant to my comment.

We all supposedly believe that the only legitimate government rests upon the consent of the governed.

The south violently dissented. Is their consent somehow not required? If not then certainly no one persons consent is required.

If individual consent is not required what exactly is the meaning of 'consent of the governed'?

And if my individual consent is not required then certainly your individual consent is not required. Is the consent of the majority required? What percentage is required for the term consent of the governed to apply.