The Gettysburg Address

[Henry]

See particularly the "reconstruction" acts.

 

[Henry]

I ask yet again, is the strong and successful central state we tolerate today a champion of economics? Of Liberty? If so, how so?

 

[level.eleven]

I'm always torn. Debating, and therefore correcting them, gives them recognition. Not debating them, gives them unfettered access.

 

[HoughMade]

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.

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.

 

[Henry]

I'm always torn. Debating, and therefore correcting them, gives them recognition. Not debating them, gives them unfettered access.

Don't tear yourself up too much... or even at all.

Some have faith in a strong, centralized state. Others do not.

I doubt you'll miss much sleep.

 

[Henry]

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.

Should one laugh or should one cry at that statement?

 

[jamil]

Should one laugh or should one cry at that statement?

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.

 

[lj98]

Perhaps if the Southern States had been a bit more magnanimous and tolerant of former slaves, then there would have been no need for things such as the Freedmen's Bureau, Civil Rights Act, Enforcement Acts, etc. All of these, arguably, led to the perception by some that a strong federal government was necessary at times; a harbinger of future expansions such as the New Deal.
However, if you want to lay the blame on anyone, you can do so on those Southerners who were determined to hold onto their way of life and social hierarchy which kept African-Americans subservient economically, politically, and socially. Much as I have argued in the thread regarding gay marriage, the rights of the individual are supposed to outweigh any others in this nation. Thus, if a state attempts to infringe or limit the rights of the people, it falls to the federal government to step in to protect them. This is why the Radical vision of Reconstruction was supported for a decade following the end of the war.

Of course, everything I just stated will fall on deaf ears to those who worship at the altar of the CSA (complete I'm sure with at least one confederate flag hanging in their home or on their car).

 

[rob63]

I ask yet again, is the strong and successful central state we tolerate today a champion of economics? Of Liberty? If so, how so?

Nobody is answering your question because nobody here is making that argument. It is a straw man. We are merely arguing that you are mistaken to hold up a bunch of slave-holders as champions of liberty. Frankly, I am astonished that such an argument is even necessary as it is self-evident.

You seem to toil under the illusion that the Confederate government actually operated under the premise of states rights.

Governor Brown of Georgia referred to Jefferson Davis as an "incipient tyrant." Brown first clashed with Davis over Georgia troops being placed under Confederate command instead of state command. He then openly challenged Davis in 1862 over the conscription act that created the first draft. You may want to note that your liberty loving Confederates began drafting citizens to be soldiers against their will in April 1862, a full year before the evil tyrannical Federal government followed suit.

Brown also objected to the Confederate army's impressment of goods and slave laborers. Yes, those liberty loving Confederates simply took what they needed from the people that had it. However, Brown himself was not to be outdone by Davis on this note. He managed to push through three separate corn appropriation acts during 1863 and 1864. Almost $2 million worth of corn was seized by the Georgia state government and handed out to starving people. The Georgia government also handed out over $1 million worth of salt to help the needy. 57% of Georgia's state expenditures during 1863-64 was for welfare programs.

The fact that you are opposed to a large central government, as am I, does not give you license to selectively edit history to suit the narrative you wish happened. In fact, it is very self-defeating because it gives the fans of large government justifiable reason to ignore you. The Nazis were very pro-environment, the original "green" party. However, the modern environmental movement has enough sense to simply ignore that rather than try to convince everyone that the Nazis were really ok guys. I don't know why you want to saddle the cause of liberty with the CSA?

 

[indiucky]

The musical 1776 sums it up.....We knew the slavery issue was going to tear the country apart but we knew if we didn't allow it we would have never become a Country...The North, the Arabs and the British were the Slave traders....The Southerners were the users of the product...No ones hands are clean of this stain...


History is neither good nor bad...It just is......

[video=youtube;yk5NAeIRY4k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk5NAeIRY4k[/video]

[video=youtube;W9yPdhL6L3o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yPdhL6L3o[/video]

 

[Henry]

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.

 

[jamil]

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.

 

[Henry]

I really do think you're blaming the wrong thing.

It set the stage for where we are today.

Lincoln did not save the republic. He killed it. It was transformed from a union by consent to a union by force.

In doing so, the path was paved for the vast overreaches of the central state seen in the 1910s, the 30's the 60's and continuing today.

 

[jamil]

Well, at least that's what the books you're reading tell you. And really, it would have happened eventually anyway. War or no war.

I don't regard Lincoln with the hero worship that most do; he did some unsavory things in the name of anti-slavery. But he's much less the villain some of you make him out to be than the Southern aristocracy. They only cared about states' rights when it served as the only vehicle to allow them to keep doing what the political winds opposed. Everyone is a hypocrite. It's just the way it is. But at least it allows you to see one's biases when you see the hypocrisy.

 

[dross]

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.

 

[jamil]

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.

Well said.

 

[Henry]

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?

 

[jamil]

What is your opinion regarding abortion?

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

 

[dross]

I see the point of your question, and I must say, as muddled as I've found your thinking in several of your posts upthread, it's a razor-sharp question you ask, Sir.

First, I don't want to debate the particulars of my opinion on abortion. It's not appropriate to this thread's subject and I've made my mind based on the available evidence - all you'd be doing is arguing evidence I've already considered and I'm just not interested. It's a hard, hard issue, to me.

I don't know when human living tissue becomes a human being that should be protected by the law. I recognize that there's a moment when that must occur. After that moment the human deserves protection by the state.

For me, I'm comfortable with 1st trimester abortions. I'm uncomfortable with elective abortions after that. I think if it's a choice between life or death between a woman and an unborn child, we must grant the choice to the woman. Surrounding those issues, I might have 100 other things to say.

To concede your implied point - yes, I think there's a moment in time combined with elective abortion that constitutes a violation of human rights beyond even slavery. I'm in the dark about so many of the particulars, however, that I must declare myself reluctantly "pro-choice" in such matters. (Yes, I hate the term I just used and recognize it's hypocrisy.)

That's as good as I can give you, but great question in the context. I will comment no further on my abortion views in this thread.

 

[rob63]

What is your opinion regarding abortion?

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?