Things Fall Apart (Pat Buchanan)

[Bigun]

Point being, that when we talk about how moral our ancestors were in the late 19th and early 19th centuries, we do have to take into consideration abortion, slavery, and lack of women's rights among other such issues that did exist and were acceptable at that time.

Just responding to the concern over how far our original virtues have fallen.

Slavery was an economic necessity for a time and would have died of natural causes had it been allowed to.

The fact of the mater is that the United States Government could have purchased and freed every single slave in the country at the time for less than the spent on what the did do! Why did they not pursue that avenue?

[olde north church]

I do not accept the argument that slavery is akin to America's Original Sin.
 
The social institution of slavery was, in fact a denial of the values upon which this nation was founded ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."), stemming from a false belief about the essential humanity of black persons.
 
Only a small number of American colonists or citizens ever owned slaves, and many more Americans opposed the practice.
 
And yet I feel safe in proclaiming that none among either of these groups - slave owners and abolitionists - would have willingly countenanced the intentional destruction of unborn children in their mothers' wombs, and would have been properly appalled by it.
 
Which ought to illustrate just how far from our original virtues we have now fallen.

I understand not every American owned a slave.  How many slaves were acceptable in nation built on the foundation that all men are created equal?  Those held in bondage were human enough that 3/5ths were considered for legislative purposes.  Like most men who sin, it's often a matter of degree.
I'm sure when Franklin or Jefferson or Adams went to Europe they saw black men out of chains and considered to be equal.  We can't forget the Irish though.  Or the Chinese.  I don't give a tinker's damn for any of them.

[MACVSOG68]

Slavery was an economic necessity for a time and would have died of natural causes had it been allowed to.

The fact of the mater is that the United States Government could have purchased and freed every single slave in the country at the time for less than the spent on what the did do! Why did they not pursue that avenue?

Economic necessities are not necessarily moral apparently.  And of course buying the slaves and sending them off to Liberia wouldn't necessarily have settled the issue, since the Constitution would still not have prevented it all over again.

Morality hasn't always been so narrowly defined as some believe.

[olde north church]

Economic necessities are not necessarily moral apparently.  And of course buying the slaves and sending them off to Liberia wouldn't necessarily have settled the issue, since the Constitution would still not have prevented it all over again.

Morality hasn't always been so narrowly defined as some believe.

Isn't there something about the path being narrow but well marked?

[Bigun]

And of course buying the slaves and sending them off to Liberia wouldn't necessarily have settled the issue, since the Constitution would still not have prevented it all over again.

BS!!! that is a cop out! A deal to end slavery in the U.S. where the government reasonably compensated the owners for the loss of their property could have easily been done! But that isn't what the big boys wanted now is it?
 

[MACVSOG68]

BS!!! that is a cop out! A deal to end slavery in the U.S. where the government reasonably compensated the owners for the loss of their property could have easily been done! But that isn't what the big boys wanted now is it?

So when is the last time any promise or deal made that included the government lasted?  As for that "deal", if it didn't include a 13th Amendment, it would have lasted until the money was spent.  And even if it was proposed, how many southern states would have voted to ratify, especially with all the potential new states in the territories?

[Bigun]

So when is the last time any promise or deal made that included the government lasted?  As for that "deal", if it didn't include a 13th Amendment, it would have lasted until the money was spent.  And even if it was proposed, how many southern states would have voted to ratify, especially with all the potential new states in the territories?

I'm not quite a clairvoyant as you seem to think you are but in my view potentially all of them. But we will never know because it wasn't tried.

[MACVSOG68]

I'm not quite a clairvoyant as you seem to think you are but in my view potentially all of them. But we will never know because it wasn't tried.

It was certainly floated around most quarters at the time, and when Lincoln said he wouldn't try to end slavery if it would save the Union, the South still attacked.  Slavery was the basis for their constitution and was mandatory for each confederate state.  So that's why the slave states would not have either stayed with the agreement or ratified an amendment to end slavery.  And of course, how many agreements with the Indian tribes did the government keep?

Not to mention all of the agreements to rein in spending such as Gramm-Rudman.  Best to always assume either party to an agreement involving the government will find a way to shred it sooner or later...so as not to be overly disappointed.

[evadR]

Both sides were polarized to the point of no return.
Kind of like....TODAY!

[olde north church]

It was certainly floated around most quarters at the time, and when Lincoln said he wouldn't try to end slavery if it would save the Union, the South still attacked.  Slavery was the basis for their constitution and was mandatory for each confederate state.  So that's why the slave states would not have either stayed with the agreement or ratified an amendment to end slavery.  And of course, how many agreements with the Indian tribes did the government keep?

Not to mention all of the agreements to rein in spending such as Gramm-Rudman.  Best to always assume either party to an agreement involving the government will find a way to shred it sooner or later...so as not to be overly disappointed.

The Roman Catholic church was behind both the Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

[Bigun]

It was certainly floated around most quarters at the time, and when Lincoln said he wouldn't try to end slavery if it would save the Union, the South still attacked.  Slavery was the basis for their constitution and was mandatory for each confederate state.  So that's why the slave states would not have either stayed with the agreement or ratified an amendment to end slavery.  And of course, how many agreements with the Indian tribes did the government keep?

Not to mention all of the agreements to rein in spending such as Gramm-Rudman.  Best to always assume either party to an agreement involving the government will find a way to shred it sooner or later...so as not to be overly disappointed.

ROFLMFAO!!!

Forgive me sir for finding it just a tad tad funny that a man of you obvious cognitive abilities would reason that an agreement arrived at only under force of arms would be more durable than any potential agreement freely agreed to by all parties!

[aligncare]

Just as abortion stems from a false belief about the essential humanity of the unborn...

No. Women who abort their babies understand it's a baby, they just don't care. All they care about are their own lives. It's just plain, naked selfishness. A baby is inconvenient if it's unplanned (so they tell themselves). So, they flush it away. Problem solved. And few feel remorse.

[MACVSOG68]

The Roman Catholic church was behind both the Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

That might be an interesting read.

[MACVSOG68]

ROFLMFAO!!!

Hope you didn't hurt yourself.

Forgive me sir for finding it just a tad tad funny that a man of you obvious cognitive abilities would reason that an agreement arrived at only under force of arms would be more durable than any potential agreement freely agreed to by all parties!

Economics my friend.  If slavery could have ended with one payment and a handshake, then why didn't South Carolina accept Lincoln's promise not to end slavery if they wouldn't leave the Union?  And if slavery wasn't that big an issue, why did they make it mandatory for each confederate state?  Seems strange coming from a confederate government that claimed they went to war to preserve freedom.

As to agreements freely entered into by all parties, history has some sad tales, not the least of which was the agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler.  How about the agreement by the US, Russia and the UK to preserve the borders of Ukraine if they would just give up their nukes. 

[DCPatriot]

No. Women who abort their babies understand it's a baby, they just don't care. All they care about are their own lives. It's just plain, naked selfishness. A baby is inconvenient if it's unplanned (so they tell themselves). So, they flush it away. Problem solved. And few feel remorse.

I can't agree with that, AC!

I have to believe that the vast majority of women who choose to abort are...in their minds...voiding tissue mass.

And if said fetus can't survive on its own outside the womb, I would tend to agree with them.

Abortion should be between a woman and her God...and her doctor.

As far as remorse goes, that usually shows up many years later, when they are looking into their child's eyes.  What COULD have been.

Personally, I'm pro-life.  What Conservative wouldn't be?  But that doesn't mean a thing except that it soothes my conscious.

[Bigun]

Hope you didn't hurt yourself.

Economics my friend.  If slavery could have ended with one payment and a handshake, then why didn't South Carolina accept Lincoln's promise not to end slavery if they wouldn't leave the Union?  And if slavery wasn't that big an issue, why did they make it mandatory for each confederate state?  Seems strange coming from a confederate government that claimed they went to war to preserve freedom.

As to agreements freely entered into by all parties, history has some sad tales, not the least of which was the agreement between Chamberlain and Hitler.  How about the agreement by the US, Russia and the UK to preserve the borders of Ukraine if they would just give up their nukes.

Well at least you got the economics part right!  Lincoln and his Whig supporters (Read Northern industrialists and Communist who had barley escaped Europe after their failed revolutions there in 1848) were DETERMINED to enforce their tariff and to hell with what it did to the country!  The wanted WAR and WAR they got and we have lived with and continue to live with the result to this very day!!

[musiclady]

No. Women who abort their babies understand it's a baby, they just don't care. All they care about are their own lives. It's just plain, naked selfishness. A baby is inconvenient if it's unplanned (so they tell themselves). So, they flush it away. Problem solved. And few feel remorse.

Thirty two years ago, when the hideous Roe v Wade passed, I think there were many women who believed the lie that their baby wasn't a baby, but now, I completely agree.  Women know they are killing their child, and choose to do so anyway.

And you are also right that the majority do it for convenience (that includes financial convenience).

Where I disagree is your statement that "few feel remorse."  Most don't admit it publicly, but I believe that all but the conscience-seared feel remorse.  There is a lot of Christian counseling dealing with women who very much feel guilt (true guilt)  that they flushed their babies down the toilet.   They thought they had solved their problem, but in dealing with the emotional, physical and psychological repercussions,  they find out otherwise.

They've created a problem far worse.

[MACVSOG68]

Well at least you got the economics part right!  Lincoln and his Whig supporters (Read Northern industrialists and Communist who had barley escaped Europe after their failed revolutions there in 1848) were DETERMINED to enforce their tariff and to hell with what it did to the country!  The wanted WAR and WAR they got and we have lived with and continue to live with the result to this very day!!

Many in the South today still believe the war wasn't about slavery in spite of the Confederate constitution.  But people still believe the Earth is only 6000 years old too.  So I guess some things just have to be left to faith.

[Bigun]

Many in the South today still believe the war wasn't about slavery in spite of the Confederate constitution.  But people still believe the Earth is only 6000 years old too.  So I guess some things just have to be left to faith.

No one her is saying that slavery was not a big factor in the run up to the War of Northern Aggression because it most certainly was! But the BIG reason was enforcement of the tariff!

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

John Adams

Mr. Adams was right about that!


 

[MACVSOG68]

No one her is saying that slavery was not a big factor in the run up to the War of Northern Aggression because it most certainly was! But the BIG reason was enforcement of the tariff!

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

John Adams

Mr. Adams was right about that!


 

Even here in South Carolina, the state that started the conflict, I don't often hear that phrase "War of Northern Aggression".  Nevertheless, on December 20, 1960, shortly after Lincoln won election, South Carolina seceded from the Union under the guise of the "Confederate States of America", and gave its reasons in the declaration.  The entire reason given was slavery and how ownership of the property of the slave states was being endangered by the federal government.

Lincoln's absolute promise not to interfere with the slaveholding states didn't convince the new "confederacy", as they knew that admission of new free states would ultimately give Congress the votes to end slavery.  And slavery is what made the slave states rich.

BTW, John Adams, while not associated with radical abolitionists, was adamantly opposed to slavery.

[Bigun]

Even here in South Carolina, the state that started the conflict, I don't often hear that phrase "War of Northern Aggression".

Lincoln's absolute promise not to interfere with the slaveholding states didn't convince the new "confederacy", as they knew that admission of new free states would ultimately give Congress the votes to end slavery.  And slavery is what made the slave states rich.

BTW, John Adams, while not associated with radical abolitionists, was adamantly opposed to slavery.

I call them as I see them and the War of Northern aggression is as good a title as I can come up with based on the FACTS!

Lincoln didn't care about anything but his precious tariff and he was determined to collect it!

Lots of people were opposed to slavery! Many of them happened to be southerners and none of that has a darned thing to do with what Adams said in the quote I posted above.

[MACVSOG68]

I call them as I see them and the War of Northern aggression is as good a title as I can come up with based on the FACTS!

Lincoln didn't care about anything but his precious tariff and he was determined to collect it!

Lots of people were opposed to slavery! Many of them happened to be southerners and none of that has a darned thing to do with what Adams said in the quote I posted above.

Funny SC never mentioned anything about the tariff in their "declaration of independence"  when they seceded.  Certainly the tariff didn't help matters, but the movement that brought secession to the southern states was well on its way long before that tariff was signed into law.  And didn't the Confederacy finance itself through tariffs?

BTW, wasn't putting down your Adams quote.  Just thought quoting Adams a tad ironic given the discussion.

[Bigun]

Here's another quote for you!

"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty".

Karl Marx, 1861

Even he could see the truth!

[MACVSOG68]

Here's another quote for you!

"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty".

Karl Marx, 1861

Even he could see the truth!

Well if you can't believe Karl Marx, who can you believe?   

[Lando Lincoln]

Here is an interesting article which argues that tariffs were at the heart of the original conflict:

Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War

As for me, I have always held that while slavery was at the center of the conflict.  In truth, it was one of many. 

The "liberal" North resented the (relatively speaking, few) prosperous landowners of the South - which was exacerbated by knowing that the individual prosperity was borne from slave labor.  Everyone knew intuitively, intellectually that the peculiar institution could not, would not survive in perpetuity. 

Meanwhile, the South seethed over the manufacturing prowess of the North - and they felt they paid too much for the goods from the North.

If slavery was not the full cause of the War, it was certainly what sustained it.  By the time of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, it WAS the War.  It was the War of a way of life.  One that needed to die but refused to do so.