In other threads, you've utterly failed to demonstrate that Lincoln was any more racist than any of his contemporaries. By today's standards, almost everyone in 1860s USA was racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, xenophobic, and so. This "despite the ability to readily research Lincoln and to present facts" that should back up your claims about him being a horrible racist, if, in fact, he was.
What I do find terribly annoying, however, is when someone holds himself up as some kind of expert in real history, but lacks the ability to properly balance between two conflicting truths such as to paint complex historic figures as one-dimensional.
Charles
By natural law as we understand it today, any individual has a right to render aid to any other individual whose rights are being abridged.
The same right that you have to render aid to an innocent third party being dragged against her will into the bushes by a rapist, enables you to also render aid to a man held in slavery.
Similarly the same right that allows you to render aid to a man who is being robbed of his rightful property by an armed hoodlum.
By natural law, the man and woman held in slavery has every right to free himself, to request or accept aid in doing so. And every man has a natural right to render the aid necessary to effect the slave's freedom.
Perhaps, what you intended to ask about was whether the federal government had any constitutional authority to force the South to end slavery. THAT may well be a different answer, being a different question. But I think whether you intended to or not, you asked the appropriate question for this group to consider. Doubly so for those who assert a nation has no more proper powers than an individual in that nation has, or who consider the constitution itself to be racist (slavery explicitly permitted, blacks counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes), anti-liberty, and statist.
The companion question to your question is, "By what right did slave owners or their government, presume to hold men in slavery? To force from them the fruit of their labors? To use women as mere objects for sexual gratification without any consent whatsoever? To buy, sell, trade, and profit in another man's life, liberty, family, blood, sweat, and work?"
I love most of Southern culture. And while there are fine aspects of New England Puritanism, in total, I find the know-it-all busybodiesm distasteful. I abhor what Reconstruction did to the South. The same men who effected that, persecuted my ancestors for their peaceful, consensual religious marriage practices. I recognize the hobson's choice the South faced with slavery by the mid 19th century.
But no thinking, rational, moral person today can justify or sugar coat slavery in the least. If every slave in the nation had actually be treated twice as well as Southern propagandists claimed they were, slavery would still have been an unspeakably horrific institution at complete odds with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. It had to come to an end.
Would that it could have done so peacefully. But it didn't. Perhaps had Lincoln lost the election. Perhaps had Southern forces not fired on Fort Sumter but instead appealed to their brothers in the North for a peaceful resolution. Perhaps....
But at the end of the day, no man, no nation, has a right to hold others in slavery.
What a shame your liberal friend and you both failed to see that with any clarity.
Charles
By natural law as we understand it today, any individual has a right to render aid to any other individual whose rights are being abridged.
Charles
By natural law as we understand it today,
snipppp
What a shame your liberal friend and you both failed to see that with any clarity.
Charles
Yeah, logix, whose needz thad crapty schtuff.
Truth is a fickle quarry. I doubt you'd hit it with a load of Grapeshot.
--snipped--
You, Utah, make Spock and Grapeshot proud. Pure logic, always the smart guy.
Says the guy who wasn't involved in the discussion between my liberal friend and I.
By natural law as we understand it today, any individual has a right to render aid to any other individual whose rights are being abridged.
The same right that you have to render aid to an innocent third party being dragged against her will into the bushes by a rapist, enables you to also render aid to a man held in slavery.
Similarly the same right that allows you to render aid to a man who is being robbed of his rightful property by an armed hoodlum.
By natural law, the man and woman held in slavery has every right to free himself, to request or accept aid in doing so. And every man has a natural right to render the aid necessary to effect the slave's freedom.
Perhaps, what you intended to ask about was whether the federal government had any constitutional authority to force the South to end slavery. THAT may well be a different answer, being a different question. But I think whether you intended to or not, you asked the appropriate question for this group to consider. Doubly so for those who assert a nation has no more proper powers than an individual in that nation has, or who consider the constitution itself to be racist (slavery explicitly permitted, blacks counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes), anti-liberty, and statist.
The companion question to your question is, "By what right did slave owners or their government, presume to hold men in slavery? To force from them the fruit of their labors? To use women as mere objects for sexual gratification without any consent whatsoever? To buy, sell, trade, and profit in another man's life, liberty, family, blood, sweat, and work?"
I love most of Southern culture. And while there are fine aspects of New England Puritanism, in total, I find the know-it-all busybodiesm distasteful. I abhor what Reconstruction did to the South. The same men who effected that, persecuted my ancestors for their peaceful, consensual religious marriage practices. I recognize the hobson's choice the South faced with slavery by the mid 19th century.
But no thinking, rational, moral person today can justify or sugar coat slavery in the least. If every slave in the nation had actually be treated twice as well as Southern propagandists claimed they were, slavery would still have been an unspeakably horrific institution at complete odds with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. It had to come to an end.
Would that it could have done so peacefully. But it didn't. Perhaps had Lincoln lost the election. Perhaps had Southern forces not fired on Fort Sumter but instead appealed to their brothers in the North for a peaceful resolution. Perhaps....
But at the end of the day, no man, no nation, has a right to hold others in slavery.
What a shame your liberal friend and you both failed to see that with any clarity.
Charles
lengthy read, but the singular focus of Lincoln should be evident. Unless the above is all ya need to know about Lincoln and the Southern States.As far back as 1856, Mr. Lincoln had told a Republican convention in Illinois: “We say to the southern disunionists, we won’t go out of the Union, and you shan’t.”
http://abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-secession/
https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/Besides the personal attacks and misrepresentation, some seem not to get it.
...
WW2, the Germans were not bad people. The plus side is that th r NAZI helped in medical and scientific advancements. The way they got some of the results were questionable but the end results were good. Just saying that if you have to take the good with the bad about Lincoln, then you have to do the same with Hitler. Also all the advancements from all the wars no matter the cause for the wars.In other threads, you've utterly failed to demonstrate that Lincoln was any more racist than any of his contemporaries. By today's standards, almost everyone in 1860s USA was racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, xenophobic, and so. This "despite the ability to readily research Lincoln and to present facts" that should back up your claims about him being a horrible racist, if, in fact, he was.
I don't much care whether someone loves Lincoln or hates him. My own feelings on him are mixed. He kept the union together which I consider a good thing. Whatever the motives of Union and Confederacy, Lincoln or Davis, at the outset, the War Between the States ultimately brought an end to legal slavery in this nation...which is an unquestionable good. On the flip side, Lincoln's tactics both in the War and on the domestic front were horrific, the shift in power to the federal government has created serious problems and eroded constitutional checks and balances, and there is no doubt the nation paid a horrible price in the war. Perhaps slavery would have ended without the war. Maybe England would have eventually granted us independence without the Revolutionary war.
What I do find terribly annoying, however, is when someone holds himself up as some kind of expert in real history, but lacks the ability to properly balance between two conflicting truths such as to paint complex historic figures as one-dimensional.
On the one hand, morality is not relative. On the other hand, all men are greatly influenced by the society in which they are born and live; to make simplistic judgments about the past based on current standards leads to a wholly warped view of history. From recent "graduates" of government run day cares (some call them high schools), such ignorance as might manifest by claiming all "Rebels" were bad people while all "Yanks" were freedom loving emancipators is sad. From someone professing to know the "real" history and who has clearly read enough outside the usual grade school curriculum to know better, it moves from sad to something more like blind religious dogma.
Charles
WW2, the Germans were not bad people. The plus side is that th r NAZI helped in medical and scientific advancements. The way they got some of the results were questionable but the end results were good. Just saying that if you have to take the good with the bad about Lincoln, then you have to do the same with Hitler. Also all the advancements from all the wars no matter the cause for the wars.
Since wars create advancements that can improve our daily lives, we should just have a good shoot it out every 20-30 years.
Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/317749.html
It is exceedingly apparent that the federal government is important to some folks even back in the day...so to speak.
The north LOSES all appeals to starting a war with the south based on the north's Natural Rights to help (or free) slaves in the south, since the north continued sanctioning slavery in the north.
Yup, one ought to always judge history based on today's understanding of cultural norms.
Says the guy who wasn't involved in the discussion between my liberal friend and I.
I find it extremely humorous that your great ego causes you to tell me what questions I intended to ask as you use an insult to point out what you decided I and my liberal friend failed to see just so you can redirect the conversation in order to toot your own arrogant know it all horn in yet another wall of text lecture.
Besides the personal attacks and misrepresentation, some seem not to get it.