The Gettysburg Address

[poptab]

I would argue that the Constitution is quite clear on where that particular power lies.
The Constitution, and the conventions it established, required the assent of 2/3 of the states to ratify it. Arguably, in order to break that covenant, the agreement of 2/3 of the states was also necessary. The 7 states that ultimately formed the confederacy did not even equal to 1/3 the total number at the time.

Are you willing to kill someone over those beliefs?

Are you willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people for those beliefs?

 

[rob63]

Are you willing to kill someone over those beliefs?

Are you willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people for those beliefs?

Nobody is going to die. We are going to march the army to Richmond and watch the rebels scatter. We can make a picnic of it.

How many people are you willing to kill so that you can keep your slaves?

 

[jamil]

Are you willing to kill someone over those beliefs?

Are you willing to kill hundreds of thousands of people for those beliefs?

I can't possibly know for certain but it would not surprise me to find out that more people have died because of "belief" than about any other unnatural cause.

To think that only one side of this conflict had the faulty belief seems ridiculous.

 

[Henry]

So if a group of people say "we secede from the US!" and fire the first shots, they aren't traitors?

The matter of the "first shot" was already addressed someplace earlier in the thread and no they were not traitors.

 

[Henry]

I would argue that the Constitution is quite clear on where that particular power lies.
The Constitution, and the conventions it established, required the assent of 2/3 of the states to ratify it. Arguably, in order to break that covenant, the agreement of 2/3 of the states was also necessary. The 7 states that ultimately formed the confederacy did not even equal to 1/3 the total number at the time.

Arguably? The Constitution does not state that anywhere.

Indeed, the Confederates were the only ones adhering to the Constitution by exercising those powers retained under the Tenth Amendment.

 

[MisterChester]

The matter of the "first shot" was already addressed someplace earlier in the thread and no they were not traitors.

How were they not traitors? If they really believed in the constitution they wouldn't have abandoned it and shot American troops first.

 

[Henry]

Already addressed earlier.

 

[lj98]

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Seems to me that the CSA included territory belonging to the United States as well as property. Also, 9 out of 13 is indeed 2/3. Although, just to be clear, I did add the modifier arguably.

 

[Henry]

United States property in the CSA was also addressed earlier in the thread.

The Tenth Amendment was demanded by the sovereign States before ratifying the Constitution for a reason.

 

[poptab]

Nobody is going to die. We are going to march the army to Richmond and watch the rebels scatter. We can make a picnic of it.

How many people are you willing to kill so that you can keep your slaves?

You didn't answer the question.

 

[evsnova74]

Seems to me that the CSA included territory belonging to the United States as well as property.

Or in other words, "You didn't build that"?

 

[rob63]

You didn't answer the question.

Ok, I will answer your question. Not because you deserve an answer, frankly, I don't think you do. There are quite a few questions in this thread directed at you that you have failed to answer, and you have earned no Quid pro quo from me.

Nonetheless, I wish to divest myself of this thread and so will give it a thoughtful answer. I don't doubt that my answer will fall on deaf ears, you will continue to post your nonsense, and you will eventually declare victory and pat yourself on the back.

Your viewpoint of the Civil War is a very simplistic one: Lincoln could have simply let the CSA go. There would have been no war. Slavery in the South would have eventually died peacefully. Lincoln is responsible for 600,000 deaths and must have been a tyrant to have done such a thing.

Your arguments are based in a modern perspective, not a historical perspective. They take basic rights, freedoms, an especially democracy for granted.

The world in which Lincoln lived was much different. The US remained the only successful democracy in the entire world in 1861.

France had a brief republic in the 1790's, but reverted to an empire and then a monarchy.

The island of Haiti had a slave revolt in 1804 that led to a brief republic, but it had reverted to being led by an emperor at the time of the Civil War.

The European revolutions of 1848 had a large impact on the viewpoints of those living in the 1860's. Republican revolutions swept much of Europe, but within a year they had all been crushed and monarchies reestablished throughout Europe. The closest thing to a democratic success was in Denmark where a constitutional monarchy was put in place of the absolute monarchy. A large number of refugees from those wars settled in the US, chased out of their home countries by the monarchs they had fought against. They almost all settled in the North and thoroughly despised the Southerners that would risk destroying democracy for the sake of preserving slavery.

Every other democracy in history had fallen into anarchy and been replaced by an empire or a monarchy. If you lived anywhere in the world besides the US in 1861 your ruler was a king, a czar, an emperor, a chief, or some other form of despot.

The monarchies of Europe had argued for centuries that any attempt of self-rule by the peasants was destined to end in anarchy. Lincoln was seeing it with his own eyes. He realized that once it had been established that disputes could be settled by secession then that would be the way it would always be and anarchy would result. We see it to this day; every election there is somebody, somewhere, that wants to secede every time an election doesn't go their way. Anarchy is inherently unstable, it is always replaced with an empire, monarchy, or dictatorship. If Lincoln did nothing, then democracy was finished in the US and the entire world, perhaps forever. The European monarchies would have gladly added the territories of the former US states to their empires following each round of secessions. Mexico was hungry to get back what they had lost in 1848 and now had the backing of France. The new German empire established in 1871 was in constant friction with the US in the 1880's and 1890's over their desire for colonies in the pacific. How much better it would have been for them if they had been able to simply take parts of the US itself as a colony. If the US had failed to go to war in order to keep the CSA as part of the US do you honestly think they would have then went to war to rescue Florida from Spain or Texas from France?

The beginning of the Gettysburg Address is:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”

You have stated that this is a masterful piece of demagoguery, but it only appears that way to you because you take the survival of democracy for granted. To Lincoln and his audience it was a very real question, not to be taken lightly. You can ignore the question because you have a long history of democracy behind you, but they did not have that luxury. The question of whether democracy will survive is the reason the address is recited on July 4[SUP]th[/SUP], no one is trying to honor your imaginary tyrants.

You have argued that slavery ended peacefully elsewhere. You completely ignore that it was precisely because other countries had a centralized form of government that they were able to do it. The king could end slavery knowing full well that he would get to keep his servants regardless! The influence of the Pope in other nations was also a huge factor that was lacking in the US. The unique circumstances of the founding of the US resulted in a new class of wealth having power. It was wealth based not on privilege resulting from relationship to the monarch, but on business or land ownership in a largely agrarian society. Those circumstances naturally favored slave-owners who gained inordinate power based upon the wealth derived from the labor of others. The beginnings of the industrial revolution, coupled with the waves of immigrants from Europe, meant that those slave-owners could see that their power was coming to an end. Thus, they seceded, to retain their human property and their political power.

The one shining example of a successful slave revolt was in Haiti in 1804. It inspired similar revolts in the US, but they were all crushed. Nat Turner swung from a tree; hardly a peaceful outcome. Future slave revolts could expect nothing different from the slave-owners.

One can argue that the Civil War was already going on before Lincoln was even elected. The Kansas-Missouri border war had been going on since 1854. “Bleeding Kansas” was a pretty strong indicator that things were not going to end peacefully for the nation as a whole.

Let us suppose that Lincoln had allowed the CSA to go. Do you honestly think the western states would have been settled without further conflict between the US and CSA? Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico; all would have been further flashpoints. Do you think the slave owners would have been any more kindly disposed towards the abolitionists, or Vice versa, once they were each part of a separate nation? Do you think slaves escaping across the border would have ceased to be an issue? The “underground railroad” any less of a problem to the slave-owners?

Now let me answer your question. If I were in Lincoln's shoes, in the world in which he lived, balancing the survival of democracy, the survival of slavery, and the likelihood of future conflict with the CSA, I can only hope that I would have the courage to order those troops to march South.

Now my question to you, one that you have already failed to answer once: When you see my troops marching to put an end to your rebellion, how many people are you willing to kill in order to keep your slaves?

 

[jamil]

Henry, honestly, I'd like to know what fault, if any, do you place on the Southern leaders. A sign that one is not approaching belief with intellectual honesty is when one ignores the obvious facts that tends to put his belief in doubt. The written history of the Civil is full of the tails of men, shenanigans, and pretenses on both sides.

My own conclusions are that often the most dishonest people become the most powerful and are willing to do unsavory things to achieve their selfish goals. The purpose of the Civil War was indeed to settle the question of keeping or ending Slavery. Lincoln was a pragmatist, who wanted to preserve the Union. I think he believed that the two sides split could not endure on their own. He was willing to preserve the Union at any cost. I think he preferred slavery to end, and that on its own it would eventually end, but slavery was not the goal of his execution of the civil war. He did some unsavory things to achieve his goals, which had intended and unintended consequences. But he was not *the* villain of the Civil War. There were villains and hypocrisy on all sides.

You can tell that someone's making disingenuous claims when the facts stand in stark contrast of the claims.

"Muslims don't lie."

"Not one smidgeon of corruption."

"The Civil War was over States' rights."

You can't admit that the South had no problems forcing its own views on other states, that the only states' right that seemed to matter enough to them to kill for was Slavery. The congressional record from decades earlier up to the Civil war makes that point very clear. So if you can't acknowledge that, I have to conclude that your belief is ideologically based. In other words, you need history to be what your ideology says it was, rather than what it really was, and so you ignore the peskier facts.

 

[rambone]

If Lincoln did nothing, then democracy was finished in the US and the entire world, perhaps forever.

Your whole justification seems to be based on this, and it doesn't even make sense. The North was a democracy. The South was a democracy.

With a little less antagonization, the south wouldn't have even left the union.

And to claim that "democracy" is saved by killing dissent -- killing those who wish to leave -- is wildly ironic.

Let us suppose that Lincoln had allowed the CSA to go. Do you honestly think the western states would have been settled without further conflict between the US and CSA? Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico; all would have been further flashpoints. Do you think the slave owners would have been any more kindly disposed towards the abolitionists, or Vice versa, once they were each part of a separate nation? Do you think slaves escaping across the border would have ceased to be an issue? The “underground railroad” any less of a problem to the slave-owners?

Of course splitting the nation into 2 would bring future squabbling. So what? None of that justifies an all-out civil freaking war -- the worst possible thing a country can go through.

America needed diplomats. Instead it got Lincoln and lots of mass graves.

 

[poptab]

Ok, I will answer your question. Not because you deserve an answer, frankly, I don't think you do. There are quite a few questions in this thread directed at you that you have failed to answer, and you have earned no Quid pro quo from me.

Nonetheless, I wish to divest myself of this thread and so will give it a thoughtful answer. I don't doubt that my answer will fall on deaf ears, you will continue to post your nonsense, and you will eventually declare victory and pat yourself on the back.

Your viewpoint of the Civil War is a very simplistic one: Lincoln could have simply let the CSA go. There would have been no war. Slavery in the South would have eventually died peacefully. Lincoln is responsible for 600,000 deaths and must have been a tyrant to have done such a thing.

Your arguments are based in a modern perspective, not a historical perspective. They take basic rights, freedoms, an especially democracy for granted.

The world in which Lincoln lived was much different. The US remained the only successful democracy in the entire world in 1861.

France had a brief republic in the 1790's, but reverted to an empire and then a monarchy.

The island of Haiti had a slave revolt in 1804 that led to a brief republic, but it had reverted to being led by an emperor at the time of the Civil War.

The European revolutions of 1848 had a large impact on the viewpoints of those living in the 1860's. Republican revolutions swept much of Europe, but within a year they had all been crushed and monarchies reestablished throughout Europe. The closest thing to a democratic success was in Denmark where a constitutional monarchy was put in place of the absolute monarchy. A large number of refugees from those wars settled in the US, chased out of their home countries by the monarchs they had fought against. They almost all settled in the North and thoroughly despised the Southerners that would risk destroying democracy for the sake of preserving slavery.

Every other democracy in history had fallen into anarchy and been replaced by an empire or a monarchy. If you lived anywhere in the world besides the US in 1861 your ruler was a king, a czar, an emperor, a chief, or some other form of despot.

The monarchies of Europe had argued for centuries that any attempt of self-rule by the peasants was destined to end in anarchy. Lincoln was seeing it with his own eyes. He realized that once it had been established that disputes could be settled by secession then that would be the way it would always be and anarchy would result. We see it to this day; every election there is somebody, somewhere, that wants to secede every time an election doesn't go their way. Anarchy is inherently unstable, it is always replaced with an empire, monarchy, or dictatorship. If Lincoln did nothing, then democracy was finished in the US and the entire world, perhaps forever. The European monarchies would have gladly added the territories of the former US states to their empires following each round of secessions. Mexico was hungry to get back what they had lost in 1848 and now had the backing of France. The new German empire established in 1871 was in constant friction with the US in the 1880's and 1890's over their desire for colonies in the pacific. How much better it would have been for them if they had been able to simply take parts of the US itself as a colony. If the US had failed to go to war in order to keep the CSA as part of the US do you honestly think they would have then went to war to rescue Florida from Spain or Texas from France?

The beginning of the Gettysburg Address is:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”

You have stated that this is a masterful piece of demagoguery, but it only appears that way to you because you take the survival of democracy for granted. To Lincoln and his audience it was a very real question, not to be taken lightly. You can ignore the question because you have a long history of democracy behind you, but they did not have that luxury. The question of whether democracy will survive is the reason the address is recited on July 4[SUP]th[/SUP], no one is trying to honor your imaginary tyrants.

You have argued that slavery ended peacefully elsewhere. You completely ignore that it was precisely because other countries had a centralized form of government that they were able to do it. The king could end slavery knowing full well that he would get to keep his servants regardless! The influence of the Pope in other nations was also a huge factor that was lacking in the US. The unique circumstances of the founding of the US resulted in a new class of wealth having power. It was wealth based not on privilege resulting from relationship to the monarch, but on business or land ownership in a largely agrarian society. Those circumstances naturally favored slave-owners who gained inordinate power based upon the wealth derived from the labor of others. The beginnings of the industrial revolution, coupled with the waves of immigrants from Europe, meant that those slave-owners could see that their power was coming to an end. Thus, they seceded, to retain their human property and their political power.

The one shining example of a successful slave revolt was in Haiti in 1804. It inspired similar revolts in the US, but they were all crushed. Nat Turner swung from a tree; hardly a peaceful outcome. Future slave revolts could expect nothing different from the slave-owners.

One can argue that the Civil War was already going on before Lincoln was even elected. The Kansas-Missouri border war had been going on since 1854. “Bleeding Kansas” was a pretty strong indicator that things were not going to end peacefully for the nation as a whole.

Let us suppose that Lincoln had allowed the CSA to go. Do you honestly think the western states would have been settled without further conflict between the US and CSA? Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico; all would have been further flashpoints. Do you think the slave owners would have been any more kindly disposed towards the abolitionists, or Vice versa, once they were each part of a separate nation? Do you think slaves escaping across the border would have ceased to be an issue? The “underground railroad” any less of a problem to the slave-owners?

Now let me answer your question. If I were in Lincoln's shoes, in the world in which he lived, balancing the survival of democracy, the survival of slavery, and the likelihood of future conflict with the CSA, I can only hope that I would have the courage to order those troops to march South.

Now my question to you, one that you have already failed to answer once: When you see my troops marching to put an end to your rebellion, how many people are you willing to kill in order to keep your slaves?

Yea I didn't answer your obvious deflection. And obviously you have me confused with someone else. And no I'm not going to answer your loaded question.

 

[Henry]

Henry, honestly, I'd like to know what fault, if any, do you place on the Southern leaders. A sign that one is not approaching belief with intellectual honesty is when one ignores the obvious facts that tends to put his belief in doubt. The written history of the Civil is full of the tails of men, shenanigans, and pretenses on both sides.

My own conclusions are that often the most dishonest people become the most powerful and are willing to do unsavory things to achieve their selfish goals. The purpose of the Civil War was indeed to settle the question of keeping or ending Slavery. Lincoln was a pragmatist, who wanted to preserve the Union. I think he believed that the two sides split could not endure on their own. He was willing to preserve the Union at any cost. I think he preferred slavery to end, and that on its own it would eventually end, but slavery was not the goal of his execution of the civil war. He did some unsavory things to achieve his goals, which had intended and unintended consequences. But he was not *the* villain of the Civil War. There were villains and hypocrisy on all sides.

You can tell that someone's making disingenuous claims when the facts stand in stark contrast of the claims.

"Muslims don't lie."

"Not one smidgeon of corruption."

"The Civil War was over States' rights."

You can't admit that the South had no problems forcing its own views on other states, that the only states' right that seemed to matter enough to them to kill for was Slavery. The congressional record from decades earlier up to the Civil war makes that point very clear. So if you can't acknowledge that, I have to conclude that your belief is ideologically based. In other words, you need history to be what your ideology says it was, rather than what it really was, and so you ignore the peskier facts.

I am more than happy to share my thoughts, Sir.


The federal government of the united States, like the Confederacy, is a creation of man. Man is a flawed and fallen being, so it is only natural that a government created by man is a flawed and fallen system. The Confederacy is no exception to this rule. As Thomas Paine said very well, government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.


Lincoln was a tyrant who, by his own admission and by your reference, had as his ultimate intention preserving the union at whatever cost. By his own demonstration, he was more than willing to circumvent the Constitution agreed upon by the States. He was more than willing to provoke a war with those following the Constitution in order to "preserve the union". In fact, he was willing to kill a union of consent and institute a union of force in order to have a union.


No doubt there were a good number of vile people in the Confederacy, as there were a good number of vile people in the Union. As always, there will always be a good number of vile people on either side of any matter.


However, the vile people of the Confederacy are not held up as heroes of the state. Their pictures are not plastered in public school houses along side George Washington, who was willing to risk his own neck defending the principle of government by consent, as some sort of hero. (I should mention that George Washington was a slave owner given slavery seems to be the litmus test for all things good and righteous.. and if so, let us have another discussion on the current state of our government). The vile people of the Confederacy have not had their images stamped onto our coinage as a replacement for the earlier Liberty designs of our coinage. The vile people of the Confederacy do not have their graven images put upon our fiat paper currency.


Your conclusion "that often the most dishonest people become the most powerful and are willing to do unsavory things to achieve their selfish goals" is exactly correct. Lincoln is a just one example.


I do also want to add that, in my opinion, John Wilkes Booth did a great disservice to Liberty and self governance in the murder of Lincoln. I do not know this, but I suspect that he was not familiar with Soren Kierkegaard's astute observation that “The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins.” written during the north's aggression.


We are still suffering from the "rule of the martyr" today. One's time may be well spent considering how thickly it plays into where we are today and the politics de jure. Witness how the statist candidates, of either side of the party, invoke Lincoln to their statist agenda... and how the masses fawn over the invocation.


In truth, there is little to no difference between Lincoln and King George III. Both believed that union was the ultimate prize, even if it had to be done through force.

 

[Henry]

It is also worth comparing Jefferson's view of the matter of union by consent and union by force with that of Lincoln's.

The Jeffersonian Secessionist Tradition - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

 

[Henry]

Here is yet another way to consider the matter.

Do you want your wife to be your partner by consent or by force?

Which is the "more perfect union"?

 

[MisterChester]

Here is yet another way to consider the matter.

Do you want your wife to be your partner by consent or by force?

Which is the "more perfect union"?

It had to be by force. There was no legal process of secession. There is one for marriage, it's called divorce. By "separating" and having an armed rebellion against your own country, you are effectively turning your back on the constitution that YOU ratified and swore to uphold. When the confederates shot first, we had every right to put down the unlawful rebellion. They technically never left the union IMO, so that was always our soil to take back from the traitors.

 

[MisterChester]

There was a well established history of southern states attempting to negotiate peacefully prior to the military conflict, particularly in South Carolina. The response to the 1828 and 1832 Tariff Acts is but one example.


"In personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict. Rather, the true aggressor is the first who renders force necessary."

Under your "he who fires the first shot is the aggressor" theory, would you be the aggressor for firing upon an armed man breaking into your home? Or would you wait until he first fired upon you in order to be a defender of your home?

Lincoln Provoked the War

Do some of your own research.


BTW, it is also worth noting that not a single person was killed at Ft. Sumter.

To go back to your claim of "who shot first doesn't matter" argument, I call BS. If someone trespasses on my property with plans to invade my home (property) they initiated the aggression, end of story. There is nothing legal that person is doing. The fed government lawfully passed those acts, and lawfully elected Lincoln. Nothing about it was illegal. If they had a bone to pick with those events, they still had to live with it. Americans live with unpopular laws and court rulings all the time, doesn't mean we have to kill the other side.