Posted on 02/18/2005 11:27:18 PM PST by churchillbuff
I stand corrected Sir....my apologies for the faux paux..........
Which is the fatal weakness in your exculpation of Lincoln and the rump faction of Virginians who didn't accept the actions of the other 3/4's of the People of Virginia.
The People of Virginia had the right to reform their government whenever they pleased -- and to secede from the Union, for that matter. Nine guys in a phone booth in Alexandria had no right to call themselves "the People of Virginia", nor any right to attempt to form a government, when the intact government of the People of Virginia was fully functional in Richmond.
States have rights and powers. Dissident politicians don't have the same rights and powers, nor any right to pretend to dispose of same.
It is very important that you realize that I agree that slavery was morally wrong and should have been ended. Where we disagree is to the time table , and the manner in which it was done. I think that 90% of our race problems today are a product of the war, and the harsh treatment the South recieved during Reconstruction. A gradual emancipation would have been better for all concerned, and would have been better than a destructive war.
And how would you have accomplished that?
Blame who ever you want, but it was perfectly constitutional. No one said you had to like it.
The historical record fully support the conclusion that slavery was the casus belli. But that doesn't mean that people today who support secession or whom believe that Southern secession was justified share those same beliefs regarding slavery.
Neither was Lincoln in a position, without a public law passed by Congress calling forth the Militia, to order State Militia troops to attack other States' Militias, or another country. Or so we thought.
The analogy is valid. Now, how about it?
Time out. I am a man of the right, and I do not agree that the South was justified in secession on any level --- Constitutionally, morally, or ethically. Don't speak for me when you speak of secession as legitimate. It is not and never has been. I see it as a revolution without just cause.
But I also see it as having been inevitable --- destined to happen from the first shots at Lexington & Concord. The best efforts of the Founders, Framers of the Constitution and many brilliant and well intentioned men during the first eight decades of the Republic could only delay the inevitable clash.
And from a spiritual standpoint, I think Lincoln was right when he said that the War and the bloodshed was God's punishment on all Americans, whom he had blessed with so much, for the sin of slavery.
I have no idea, but something along the lines of slaves born in such year are free as of x year, owners being compensated for loss....
Show me in the Bible where it says slavery is a sin.....?
St. Paul apparently didn't agree............
Does that mean you think AIDS is God's punishment to gays and Africans? Was 9/11 God's punishment on America for abortion?
Just wondering.
Hold on. I did not say that everyone on the right agreed with secession. I simply said that there are people on the right who now agree with secession who do not do so for racial reasons. Nor did I say that I thought secession was legitimate. As a matter of face, I don't.
My view on secession is that the South's desire to continue slavery destroyed whatever right it otherwise might have had to secede, and that Lincoln was right to do what he did.
My only point is that people who disagree with my view on secession cannot be presumed to be racists, which is what D'Souza implied with that statement.
Peace, dude. I'm on your side on this.
Strangest post of the day.
So the end justifies the means.
It's gonna take more than keywords to win the debate.
Probably D'Souza himself. When you don't have a leg to stand on, start throwing out off subject statements. What yanks refuse to understand is the factual evidence of his actions and words. You can cut and paste parts of his speeches to defend the belief that lincoln actually cared, but when put into context with the entire speech or separate speeches, not to mention his actions and the war carried out on private citizens with his consent, it's clear to most that he never did care about what we are told.
And what if the owners didn't want to be compensated for their slaves, but wanted to keep them instead? A gradual emancipation plan would need the support of the slave owners, billions of dollars to fund it, and a solution for what to do with all those free blacks.
You would have to ask God about that.
So slavery does not present a Religous problem for you?
It presents a MORAL problem. Morally, by our society today, slavery is wrong. The Bible doesn't condemn it, and even gives instructions on how to treat slaves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.