Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

War Between the States about slavery? No way
The Tampa Tribune ^ | April 25, 2011 | Al Mccray

Posted on 04/25/2011 9:31:58 AM PDT by Iron Munro

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960961-963 last
To: driftless2
And thank you once again for avoiding my question.

Actually, there was nothing to 'avoid.' The post to which I responded (#954) did not contain a question. But thank you for the expression of gratitude, in any case...


961 posted on 05/04/2011 9:44:48 AM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("Sometimes I have to break the law in order to meet my management objectives." - Bill Calkins, BLM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 960 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19
I'd say anyone who justifies rape, pillage and murder of 600,000+ in the name of "morality" is "shameful". No one is arguing for slavery, and your conflation of what people are saying with what you assume they're saying is the only thing "fictional" about this discussion. (Well, that and "putting chains around the necks of the fellow men" - as that was much more a visage of the northern slave capture, shipment and trade than slavery as it ever existed in the south - and telling southerners they "sold other human beings" - when that too was particularly an area of the north's expertise).

Most here are simply arguing the essential principle of federated republics echoed through our founders - that the central behemoth, the states and the people all must live under the strict rule of law, for better or worse, because the rule of man is ultimately always worse.. You don't do the discussion any justice by conflating the timeless principles of separated powers and self-determination with the institution of slavery (that was a national and global problem at that time).

If states want to secede from the union because some states want to control the others, they retain the right to do so as their union of "mutual benefit" has been voided. Let those who take the moral high ground let the world to see, while those who do not accept the moral, political and economic scorn of the world while their evils die a slow, natural death. (Hint, the principles hold, and no one dies that way.) But any perceived moral authority flies right out the window when you start an unnecessary war.

Instead, once we permitted centralization, it grew by it's nature, and sovereignty shrunk. Though you could shout from the rooftops if you lived in state X that state Y was evil, while handling things a better way, now we're just an alphabet soup and we're all under the behemoth's thumb. The same principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" you claim were violated by some states (though arguably all) with slavery, now we all violate them together tenfold with no escape hatch. Compare the 4 million slaves built up over centuries with the "convenience" slaughtering of 50 million+ infants in mere decades since Row v Wade.

There is no manumission from slavery under tyranny. I'd say be careful what you wish for, and try really hard to grasp the principles of the discussion before you burst out with emotion again.

You're an idiot, Mr. "Row v wade". And your basis for morality is antithetical to our republic.
962 posted on 05/15/2011 11:09:03 PM PDT by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 958 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
Wait, what just happened? Did you really just stew on a post for nearly two weeks only to come up with a couple attempts at insults? Let's see what you came up with after all that work:

You're an idiot, Mr. "Row v wade".

It's Roe v. Wade, genius. And calling someone "Mr. X" means they champion X, not the in "Way to go, Mr. Shmuck".

And your basis for morality is antithetical to our republic.

Fascinating. For a "basis of morality" to be antithetical to something, that something would have to express a competing basis of morality, no? Instead you chose "our republic" (i.e. a form of government).

Not sure how/why you chose to equate those two, but (playing along) what exactly is the "basis of morality" of our republic? Is it just our republic, or all republics (like the People's Republic of China) that "my" basis of morality is antithetical to? Here I thought you were mixing apples and oranges with that sentence, but please elaborate, Mr. Philosophy. That post was deep.
963 posted on 05/16/2011 4:12:12 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 962 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960961-963 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson