Forget The President, What About The Marijuana?

[Era Might]

He wanted to preserve the union. Freeing the slaves was not his objective, and it was something the abolitionists had to battle him for.

 

You can find his racist statements on the interwebs. All Lincoln cared about was preserving the Union, and he acted like an autocrat in doing so. The better option would have been to permit secession and let the peaceful abolitionists carry on with their work.

 

I'm afraid there were no white hats, in that war.

 

My Lincoln knowledge is limited to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but in those he does go out of his way to distance himself from both slavery and vicious racism. He also went out of his way to assure his audience that he did not believe blacks and whites could ever be socially equal, but the heart of his argument was that the declaration of independence and the constitution were written with an eye toward the eventual extinction of slavery. He was a man conflicted and didn't know what to do with the world he inherited. And in these debates he was no warmonger. He was willing go to on as long as necessary until the Founders' assumption was realized, that slavery would die out, as long as it was not allowed to spread:

 

[quote]The other way is for us to surrender, and let Judge Douglas and his friends have their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease speaking of it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the common matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and cattle. But while it drives on in its state of progress as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in less than a hundred years at least; but that it will occur in the best way for both races, in God’s own good time, I have no doubt.

 

--Fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate at Charleston[/quote]

[Winchester]

My Lincoln knowledge is limited to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but in those he does go out of his way to distance himself from both slavery and vicious racism. He also went out of his way to assure his audience that he did not believe blacks and whites could ever be socially equal, but the heart of his argument was that the declaration of independence and the constitution were written with an eye toward the eventual extinction of slavery. He was a man conflicted and didn't know what to do with the world he inherited. And in these debates he was no warmonger. He was willing go to on as long as necessary until the Founders' assumption was realized, that slavery would die out, as long as it was not allowed to spread:

 

Funny thing about debates: They're mere words. His actions spoke quite loudly.

 

He did say quite clearly that he wanted to preserve the union. Preservation of the Union was the only reason he sent thousands of men to their deaths. That's sickening.

[Era Might]

Funny thing about debates: They're mere words. His actions spoke quite loudly.

 

He did say quite clearly that he wanted to preserve the union. Preservation of the Union was the only reason he sent thousands of men to their deaths. That's sickening.

 

Perhaps, but the Union was America. Without it, the idea of the nation was done, and America would just be a new Europe, a collection of separate countries.

 

If America is worth preserving (and I'm not trying to convince you whether it is or it isn't), then it means at the very least preserving the Union.

 

And, another thing that is very palpable in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, is the geopolitics in all this. The Western part of the continent was quickly being populated, and the ideological winner in all this would extend their geopolitical clout to all that western land. The preservation of the Union was also a geopolitical struggle as much as a constitutional and national struggle. It wasn't inconceivable that the North would be bordered by a massive foe on the west and south if the Union were not preserved.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Era Might

[4588686]

Funny thing about debates: They're mere words. His actions spoke quite loudly.

 

He did say quite clearly that he wanted to preserve the union. Preservation of the Union was the only reason he sent thousands of men to their deaths. That's sickening.

 

I wonder how many slaves died annually working in the Mississippi Delta.  Probably a halla-lot.  His actions spoke to the same hesitance and internal conflict that Era described.  You just ignore those facts for the sake of your nice, clean narrative.  

[Winchester]

Perhaps, but the Union was America. Without it, the idea of the nation was done, and America would just be a new Europe, a collection of separate countries.

 

Oh no, that would be horrible. The Union is a union of countries.

 

Apart from that, I think preservation of such an entity (and an entity that didn't really exist, at that) at the cost of thousands of lives in war is derangement. Honestly, the idea that we should wage war to prevent people leaving a political agreement strikes me as one of the most horrid of all the horrid religious devotions out there.

[4588686]

Oh no, that would be horrible. The Union is a union of countries.

 

Where is that in the constitution?  

[Winchester]

I wonder how many slaves died annually working in the Mississippi Delta.  Probably a halla-lot.  His actions spoke to the same hesitance and internal conflict that Era described.  You just ignore those facts for the sake of your nice, clean narrative.  

 

You must have missed the post saying there were no white hats. Scroll up. By now, you might have to click a linky numbery thing.

 

It's not clean, to me. Secession is a right. Slavery is bad. Using violence to free slaves (which was not Lincoln's motivation) is morally justifiable. It's not morally justifiable to force other people to use violence to free slaves. I couldn't, for instance, stick a gun in your ribs and compel you to go to war against that thing in Syria. Lincoln freed slaves as a political maneuver. Prior to this, the wonderful Union had instituted the fugitive slave laws.

 

The State is a murderous entity. The war was between two States. To me, it's a war between two murderous entities guilty of all manner of crimes against humanity. I suppose that is rather clean, but then it would bet muddied on the individual level, since so many statists really don't view the aggression of the State as immoral.

 

 

Where is that in the constitution?

Right next to "one nation", I suppose. The purpose of the Constitution is to outline the powers of the Federal government. Which was delegated limited powers by the people. The States formed the Federal government. "United States". It's kind of in the name.

 

How does delegation work?

 

 

Edited December 7, 2012 by Winchester

[Anomaly]

Apart from that, I think preservation of such an entity (and an entity that didn't really exist, at that) at the cost of thousands of lives in war is derangement. Honestly, the idea that we should wage war to prevent people leaving a political agreement strikes me as one of the most horrid of all the horrid religious devotions out there.

 

The entity existed then, and now.  It's sophmoric to take a position that it doesn't exist.  The United States was established and intended to exist for generations.  Get over it.  If the majority of the people living under the 'system' disagree or want to make changes, there are ways to do it.  People living in society and groups have disagreements.  People have opinions and perspectives that disagreements threaten health and rights of themselves or others in society.  It's clean and simple if you only consider your own selfish rights and ignore others in society.  

Any fundamental rights you claim for yourself, you are obliged to defend for others in your society as well, even if a third group believes they are justified in restricting or removing those rights from others.

[Aloysius]

historic debates on whether we should've gone to war in the civil war are pointless IMO.  Lincoln was a complex figure, he was no saint, but in the end we should look back at history and evaluate what has happened.  Would it have been better for slavery to have been ended by peaceful means like it was everywhere else in the civilized world?  Yes.  Is it in any way apparent that this would have happened without the civil war?  No.  We can't go back now, what we should really do is evaluate this: the slaves were freed, and that was good.  The principles of constitutional government that pretty well enshrined the type of subsidiarity we'd like to aspire to were weakened, however, so we should hope to find a way to keep what is good and correct what was lost.  A constitutional guarantee against the enslavement of anyone in this country is a great thing, I do not want to see any state have the right to enslave anyone; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be free from the coercion of any government state or federal, and so if the federal forbids the state from allowing it, that's perfectly fine.  but there is some degree to which we can restore subsidiarity so that we can see states more widely vary on how they wish to govern, so that states are not just superfluous extras but real distinctive governing bodies wherein some allow Marijuana and some do not and a whole host of other things, we need to get back to that.

 

it's the same thing as often entraps libertarians when the civil rights act comes up (as Rand Paul got attacked when he started musing during his Kentucky race about such issues); sure, there are some fundamental questions to ask about property rights and the civil rights act ended up creating a very murky water between what is defined as "public" and what is defined as "private" property; but we should look back and keep the good that came with it--the de-segregation, and re-evaluate how we can get back to certain principles without giving up that good.

 

we can learn alot about governance from the way God governs the world (and the atheists among us can view this as a useful mythological analogy): God writes straight with crooked lines, so too can we look back at the crooked lines of history--the bloody civil war, for instance, and write straight with it.  Just because states' rights once allowed slavery doesn't mean we cannot restore some state power without allowing for slavery ever again, the lessons of history are crooked lines we need to attempt to write straight with.

[Winchester]

The entity existed then, and now.  It's sophmoric to take a position that it doesn't exist.  The United States was established and intended to exist for generations.  Get over it.  If the majority of the people living under the 'system' disagree or want to make changes, there are ways to do it.  People living in society and groups have disagreements.  People have opinions and perspectives that disagreements threaten health and rights of themselves or others in society.  It's clean and simple if you only consider your own selfish rights and ignore others in society.  

Any fundamental rights you claim for yourself, you are obliged to defend for others in your society as well, even if a third group believes they are justified in restricting or removing those rights from others.

 

I'm sorry that it questions your nationalist beliefs but I believe that the United States are ______, as opposed to the United States is _________. It's not a common belief. The nationalists won. Congratulations, you're in the majority. That's certainly a sign of brilliance and rectitude. I'm impressed. Totally. It means you're giving, and I'm selfish. Okay. You're practically Mother Theresa. We should probably canonize you on the spot.

 

I believe you are free to disagree. Believe all you want that the United States are a single nation united under a "Federal" (curious choice, that word) government. For poops and giggles, feel free to cite the Pledge. I won't even point out it's an innovation written by a collectivist (even though I did, just now. I won't do it again. In response to your (theoretical) post mentioning it).

 

You might even believe people should be killed for secession. Okay. I don't care. I'm not worried about people like you.

 

You missed what I was saying by "the entity", but that's okay, too.

[Anomaly]

I'm sorry that it questions your nationalist beliefs but I believe that the United States are ______, as opposed to the United States is _________. It's not a common belief. The nationalists won. Congratulations, you're in the majority. That's certainly a sign of brilliance and rectitude. I'm impressed. Totally. It means you're giving, and I'm selfish. Okay. You're practically Mother Theresa. We should probably canonize you on the spot.

 

I believe you are free to disagree. Believe all you want that the United States are a single nation united under a "Federal" (curious choice, that word) government. For poops and giggles, feel free to cite the Pledge. I won't even point out it's an innovation written by a collectivist (even though I did, just now. I won't do it again. In response to your (theoretical) post mentioning it).

 

You might even believe people should be killed for secession. Okay. I don't care. I'm not worried about people like you.

 

You missed what I was saying by "the entity", but that's okay, too.

As is your want, you resort to extreme extropolations of people's motives and intents to justify relabeling them with your definitions.  Not all aggresson is physical. 

But hey, that's okay too!  :)

[Winchester]

As is your want, you resort to extreme extropolations of people's motives and intents to justify relabeling them with your definitions. Not all aggresson is physical.
But hey, that's okay too! :)

Did I say all aggression was physical?

[Anomaly]

Did I say all aggression was physical?

 

Did I say you did or didn't?

[Winchester]

No. But you said it for a reason.