Lincoln vs Jefferson

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Nice sidestep. It looks like you didn’t understand irish’s point. Let me re-word what little irish was saying: The southerners were talking about their rights and how their liberties were GOING to be trampled by the newly elected Republican majority president, while at the same time holding millions of human beings in utter servitude. They fought awfully hard for…

The FREEDOM to own SLAVES. [/quote]

That’s funny, I could have sworn that the post I was quoting of Irish’s was his moral justification of John Brown’s terrorist activities at Pottawatomie and Harper’s Ferry, implying that the people he killed had given up their right to freedom because of their support of the institution of slavery. Let’s just see here…

[quote]Nephorm: Was what John Brown did ok?

Irish: “Legally no. Morally, yes.”

When you enslave a race, you lose the right to talk about freedom. John Brown, as crazy as he was, did what those in Germany during the 1930’s and 40’s would not- started an armed insurrection against the greatest crime in his country’s history."[/quote]

Hmmm. Yeah, that’s what it looks he’s saying, all right. Armed insurrection against the United States because it legalizes slavery = okay.

82

Is a Union that has to be held together at gunpoint or bayonet point WORTH saving?

This question was posed by numerous newspapers of the era, and the editors and publishers wound up imprisoned on an island, for years, with no trial except perhaps a military tribunal about 15 minutes in length.

Welcome to the Land of the Free…

83

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Is a Union that has to be held together at gunpoint or bayonet point WORTH saving? [/quote]

Every nation stands to face danger from without and within.

Tell me - is the country worth defending when the threat happens to come from within?

84

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

When you enslave a race, you lose the right to talk about freedom.

By this logic, we ‘lost the right’ to fight the American Revolution.

The moral superiority of the North is somewhat undermined by the fact that Northerners became much more amenable to abolition at approximately the same time they found out that slavery didn’t serve their economic interests very well.

It is always easier to denounce an evil when one’s livelihood isn’t based upon it.[/quote]

I agree that some in the North were of course more concerned with the economic impact.

However, the abolitionist movement started in the North, Lincoln was anti-slavery, and the party he ran for was backed by many rich abolitionists in the North.

Not too mention that the “moral superiority” that you are saying they didn’t have- well, there were many soldiers that fought to end slavery, and they decidely turned the 1864 election when they all voted for Lincoln, as I recall. I know all about the regiments that resigned claiming they wouldn’t fight to free Sambo… but they were few and far between.

And again, if you’re a Southerner at the time who’s livlihood was based on owning and enslaving a race, it was your own problem when it came down to the war. The fact that slavery in any form is evil is blatant, and I do believe that most slave owning Southerners, regardless of their Biblical babblings about slavery was justified, realized that it was wrong. I think it would take either an incredibly stupid or incredibly brutal individual to say otherwise (although there were plenty of both in the South at the time, of coure.)

85

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
nephorm wrote:

The moral superiority of the North is somewhat undermined by the fact that Northerners became much more amenable to abolition at approximately the same time they found out that slavery didn’t serve their economic interests very well.

It is always easier to denounce an evil when one’s livelihood isn’t based upon it.

And as to that, what moral superiority of the North? The first colony to legalize slavery in the British New World was not Virginia, not Georgia, and not the Carolinas, but Massachusetts, followed by Connecticut, with New York and… listen up, Irish… New Jersey legalizing slavery shortly thereafter.

New Jersey allowed duty free importation of African slaves, so it became the conduit to other states (nearly all other states imposed a tax on the importation of Africans). In 1726, there were 2,581 African slaves in New Jersey. By 1790, there were 14,185, comprising nearly eight percent of the population. Slavery continued in New Jersey until it was declared illegal by the 13th Amendment, which the New Jersey legislature refused to ratify.[/quote]

I know all about it. Jersey was a maverick among northern states, and had very close economic ties to the South. I’m sure you know that the highest ranking rebel general was born in Hackensack, which is damn close to where I’m from.

Now, I’d love to apologize for that… but I had nothing to do with it.

The fact remains that the Northern states rectified their mistakes by banning slavery- something that the Southerners could not, and would not do. This equals the North…fine, the majority of the North, having the moral high ground by fielding massive armies after the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation, which stated outright that the thing was about ending slavery, adn that’s what was going to happen.

Yes, yes, I know, what about the border states???!!! Lincoln haters love that one. Well, you can’t have DC surrounded by slave states, you know that as well as I, so let’s skip that one and assume that Lincoln knew that the border states knew that slavery was over in their backyards if the North won the war.

86

[quote]nephorm wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Was what John Brown did ok?

Legally no. Morally, yes.

So terrorism - which is precisely what John Brown perpetrated - is fine when the moral imperative is strong enough.

You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say that the South had a moral obligation to abide by the rules of the republic, but Northern abolitionists did not.
[/quote]

I told you, I rephrased that. Lincoln had every right to crush the rebellion. The South did not have the legal right to leave, but they left anyway, and Lincoln had every right to burn the motherfucker to the ground because of it.

C’mon, that’s big time relativism. Abortion is an issue that is far more complicated then slavery was, namely in the debate of when a collection of cells officially becomes a person.

Well, with slavery, they were already people, people who were being murdered and raped and sold all under a flag that promised freedom for all men.

Slow moving? Easy to say when your kids aren’t being sold off tomorrow. Then tell me how slow moving and cautious you want to be.

87

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Lincoln haters love[/quote]

Not that you’re necessarily directing this at me, but I want to make clear that I am not a “Lincoln hater.” I have great respect for the man.

How is what I said relativism?

As I said before: Slave rebellion, up to and including a war of slaves against their oppressors, would be an entirely different matter. There is no social contract between slave and master. One cannot make a contract that says “this is all to my benefit, and none to yours.”

But as peers in the constitutional republic, free Northerners and Southerners all had an obligation to, as I said, be slow-moving and cautious in political change.

88

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Is a Union that has to be held together at gunpoint or bayonet point WORTH saving?

Every nation stands to face danger from without and within.

Tell me - is the country worth defending when the threat happens to come from within?[/quote]

All the Federal Government had to do was treat all citizens equally and fairly, enforce THEIR own laws in the same way, then there would not have been an internal problem.

I hate slavery but at the time slaves WERE property and many in the North would not enforce their own laws. Add to that the onerous tariffs system, which the South bore the brunt of, and they decided to leave.

Do you think that the decision to leave was made lightly? Nope. They realized what was happening, that Washington was becoming a brutal government, so they opted out.

Do you think the Founding Fathers would have agreed to or accepted the right of a central government to invade states with Federal troops, burn and bombard cities literally out of existence (which Irish seems to love the thought of), and leave women and children to starve in the dead of winter?

Its very unlikely that any of them would agree to such an atrocity. It therefore follows that the central government HAD changed and the Confederates wanted out. I don’t blame them at all.

89

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

All the Federal Government had to do was treat all citizens equally and fairly, enforce THEIR own laws in the same way, then there would not have been an internal problem.[/quote]

I am not sure what you mean by “equal treatment”. Are you referring to the tariff? Do you realize the first tariff in the US was introduced by John C. Calhoun, the same pre-Confederate Southerner that supported Nullification (essentially the stalking horse of Secession)?

Could you elaborate on where there was unequal treatment?

Yes, but all the Republicans wanted to do was start the process of legislative death of slavery - which everyone seemed to think was a fair way to deal with the problem.

The South saw their, may I remind you, government granted monopoly going by the wayside - and they realized all the privileges they had to amass wealth was going to be taken away.

Think of it, the abolition of slavery was a step closer to creating a free market in labor where the property rights of the worker would be recognized, doing away with a government bestowed privilege of chattel slavery.

I disagree. The government policy in Washington was changing - more brutal?

Everyone seems to think that slavery needed to die a legislative death - slow and methodical, incremental. Nothing Lincoln proposed was outside of this - so what was so shocking and radical? Nothing really, except that like people who have a special privilege that reduces their need to compete don’t like it taken away. Does this stand against your principles?

How else would you suppress rebellions, which the Framers expressly mentioned in the Constitution?

Ok, a fair question - without sending Federal troops to invade with guns and a nasty intent to shoot at people who are shooting back at you, how exactly does the Federal government suppress Rebellions, a constitutionally directed duty?

(Bonus question: what would be the point in suspending habeas corpus, which the Constitution permits, if there is no power to act militarily against rebels?)

That sounds pretty speculative - what is your basis for thinking so? Washington disagreed with you. The Framers clearly contemplated Insurrections and Rebellions and even the suspension of habeas corpus to put them down. How did you come to your conclusion?

90

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Is a Union that has to be held together at gunpoint or bayonet point WORTH saving?

…[/quote]

Yes.

91

There is a subtle difference between rebellion and secession. In rebellion, the rebels are trying to REPLACE the existing government. In secession, the ‘rebels’ simply want to leave.

There’s a difference between wanting to take over your employer’s company and wanting to quit for greener pastures.

The Confederates simply wanted to leave. They were willing to pay off their share of the national debt and to pay for Federal lands in the South. Lincoln refused to see the delegates.

They were cvil, he was not. He promised over and over to abandon Ft. Sumter; he did not. Instead, he provoked South Carolina by trying to provision the fort. They reacted, losing all sympathy from the vast majority of Northerners, who agreed that they had the right to leave.

92

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There is a subtle difference between rebellion and secession. In rebellion, the rebels are trying to REPLACE the existing government. In secession, the ‘rebels’ simply want to leave.
[/quote]

So which was done between 1775 and 1783? Rebellion or secession? What about between 1296 and 1328?

Seems to me that since the Colonials weren’t attempting to replace the government of Britain, then by your definition they couldn’t have been rebelling. And inasmuch as a “revolution” is simply a rebellion that has succeeded, maybe we should stop calling the war of 1775 the “American Revolution”, and instead call it the War of British Aggression.

93

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
There is a subtle difference between rebellion and secession. In rebellion, the rebels are trying to REPLACE the existing government. In secession, the ‘rebels’ simply want to leave.

So which was done between 1775 and 1783? Rebellion or secession? What about between 1296 and 1328?

Seems to me that since the Colonials weren’t attempting to replace the government of Britain, then by your definition they couldn’t have been rebelling. And inasmuch as a “revolution” is simply a rebellion that has succeeded, maybe we should stop calling the war of 1775 the “American Revolution”, and instead call it the War of British Aggression. [/quote]

The Southerners simply wanted to go their own way. That’s quite a bit different from trying to take over.

The American Revolution should be considered a secession. The Americans were not attempting to replace the government of Great Britain. They simply wanted to get away from them. Since Britain was a mercantilist state at that time, it was a good idea.

Then Lincoln reintroduced mercantilism into the US, in the form of his American System.

94

Okay, Headhunter, here’s a hypothetical for you: If the “Blue States” voted tomorrow to secede from the United States, and they elected Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi as the President and Vice President of their little confederacy, should George Bush send in the troops to drag the rebels back into the Union, or should he just shrug his shoulders and let them go?

Note: let’s assume that the use of nuclear weapons is not an option. :slight_smile:

95

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Okay, Headhunter, here’s a hypothetical for you: If the “Blue States” voted tomorrow to secede from the United States, and they elected Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi as the President and Vice President of their little confederacy, should George Bush send in the troops to drag the rebels back into the Union, or should he just shrug his shoulders and let them go?

Note: let’s assume that the use of nuclear weapons is not an option. :)[/quote]

varq:

That is actually a pretty interesting historical hypothetical. In essence, the South was trying to take by force what they couldn’t win at the ballot box.

The answer is that George would definitely have to uphold his Constitutional duty.

If my blue state sided with the bad guys (dems), I’d have to go George “Pap” Thomas on them.

JeffR

96

[quote]JeffR wrote:
If my blue state sided with the bad guys (dems), I’d have to go George “Pap” Thomas on them.

JeffR
[/quote]

The question then would be, which side would Nephorm be on?

97

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Okay, Headhunter, here’s a hypothetical for you: If the “Blue States” voted tomorrow to secede from the United States, and they elected Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi as the President and Vice President of their little confederacy, should George Bush send in the troops to drag the rebels back into the Union, or should he just shrug his shoulders and let them go?

Note: let’s assume that the use of nuclear weapons is not an option. :slight_smile:

varq:

That is actually a pretty interesting historical hypothetical. In essence, the South was trying to take by force what they couldn’t win at the ballot box.

The answer is that George would definitely have to uphold his Constitutional duty.

If my blue state sided with the bad guys (dems), I’d have to go George “Pap” Thomas on them.

JeffR
[/quote]

That is an interesting question… especially because I could not invade my home state.

It depends on many factors, of course, including why Jersey would be seceding… but it is unlikely that I would turn against my home.

98

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The question then would be, which side would Nephorm be on?[/quote]

It would depend upon the issues involved, obviously.

I am distrustful of the expansion of the federal government, and I sometimes wonder how that could be undone without a revolution. The problem with revolution (or secession) is simply: who would rule?

99

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I am distrustful of the expansion of the federal government, and I sometimes wonder how that could be undone without a revolution. The problem with revolution (or secession) is simply: who would rule?[/quote]

A wise and just Philosopher-King, of course.

100

I’m not racist, but the war was over taxes. The history books tell us the primary reason for the war was to free the slaves. Yeah right. Politics have been corrupt since, oh, about 1826. The day (July 4th) Jefferson and Madison both died.