Civil War arguments

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why wait until secession then?

[/ QUOTE ]

And why did the Emancipation Proclaimation only apply to the areas of the South that were still in rebellion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lincoln knew he wasn't going to be able to walk into the White House and declare slavery illegal. There had been talk of secession for years and it became more serious and impending with every new day up to the election. I understand that as and out and out ACer that you probably don't give much respect to politicians trying to sway from impolitic decisions and trying to balance sometimes contradictory actions, words, and ideas because you think their power is illigitimate in the first place. But for politicians, some of which actually have benevolent ideals and wish well for the country, it's a way of life. If Lincoln had determined for himself that one day slavery would be outlawed, he wouldn't come out guns blazing and free every slave, especially right after states began to secede. Doing so would basically make it impossible to end the war without a bloody, drawn out battle and military surrender. The Emancipation Proclamation was a political as well as military decision, which of course furthered his own goal (in my opinion) of freeing slaves.

But Civil War was one of 2 Bs I got in college. So maybe I'm missing something.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Why wait until secession then?

[/ QUOTE ]

A large part of the reason the South seceded when it did was that the North was blocking expasnion of slavery into new western states which would tip the balance of power in congress where anti-slavery states would have the votes to do that.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
...you probably don't give much respect to politicians trying to sway from impolitic decisions and trying to balance sometimes contradictory actions, words, and ideas because you think their power is illigitimate in the first place. But for politicians, some of which actually have benevolent ideals and wish well for the country, it's a way of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they lie so that they can accomplish good? If their secret agenda is so great, why do they have to lie about it?

[ QUOTE ]
If Lincoln had determined for himself that one day slavery would be outlawed, he wouldn't come out guns blazing and free every slave, especially right after states began to secede. Doing so would basically make it impossible to end the war without a bloody, drawn out battle and military surrender.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Isn't that exactly what happened? Or is 600,000 dead not "bloody" in your opinion?

[ QUOTE ]
The Emancipation Proclamation was a political as well as military decision, which of course furthered his own goal (in my opinion) of freeing slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got the first part right. The political goal was to gain foreign support for the union (which succeeded), and therefore to end any possibility of foreign assistance to the confederacy.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
If the south had the right to leave the union, the Union forces clearly should have evacuated the fort, and their refusal was an act of aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? The forts were federal property. The South said "Get out, that property's ours now". The North said "Like hell it is." The South then opened fire on it. How did federal property magically turn into state property simply because the South seceeded? Seems to me the South initiated the aggression and escalated it by attacking the fort.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Here is some incriminating evidence as to Lincoln's true motives.

[ QUOTE ]
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the topical meaning here reveals Lincoln's true motives. Lincoln was the most gifted orater of his time, and maybe the most gifted orater in American History. His motives are QUITE unclear in an open letter... that is a letter to Horace Greely sent to a bunch of newspapers. Read the Lincoln Douglas debates.... He says some things that would make most of us blush...but then again he was running for President and had to campaign in Slave States too, which is why Lincoln's message varries a lot based on his audience. But to think that emancipation of all slaves in America was not high up on Lincoln's list is just absurd....According to that argument, the South must have just made a big blunder in seceding... the leaders must have been the stupidest people on the planet.... "You mean you wouldn't have made us give up slavery... We just wasted over 300 thousand of our most fit men...Woops...I'm sorry...my bad...yeah, really fealing guilty about that one" Not all that plausible IMHO, especailly coming from the party whose whole rease to be was to end slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's high up there, but clearly the "paramount" objective of the struggle was to "preserve the union." If anyone believes that the death of 600,000 men is worth this goal, please give me an explanation as to why.

Also, if people are going to use the slavery issue, I would like people to defend their "two wrongs make a right" stance. That is, that it is justifiable for the US Government to enslave everyone (conscription) in order to prevent the slavery of others.

Finally, if anyone believes that the South wasn't justified in their succession, just look at what happened. The southerners were bound by a contract (the Constitution) that they didn't sign. By virtue of that, I don't see how anyone can actually bind them to it. If 3 people are on an island and one wants to escape, do the other two have the right to prevent him because they won a majority vote? Do they have the right to kill him when he makes his attempt? All because their grandparents signed an agreement stating that no man is allowed to escape from the island without the consent of the majority?

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Here is some incriminating evidence as to Lincoln's true motives.

[ QUOTE ]
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot seriously be suggesting that the topical meaning here reveals Lincoln's true motives. Lincoln was the most gifted orater of his time, and maybe the most gifted orater in American History. His motives are QUITE unclear in an open letter... that is a letter to Horace Greely sent to a bunch of newspapers. Read the Lincoln Douglas debates.... He says some things that would make most of us blush...but then again he was running for President and had to campaign in Slave States too, which is why Lincoln's message varries a lot based on his audience. But to think that emancipation of all slaves in America was not high up on Lincoln's list is just absurd....According to that argument, the South must have just made a big blunder in seceding... the leaders must have been the stupidest people on the planet.... "You mean you wouldn't have made us give up slavery... We just wasted over 300 thousand of our most fit men...Woops...I'm sorry...my bad...yeah, really fealing guilty about that one" Not all that plausible IMHO, especailly coming from the party whose whole rease to be was to end slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's high up there, but clearly the "paramount" objective of the struggle was to "preserve the union." If anyone believes that the death of 600,000 men is worth this goal, please give me an explanation as to why.

Also, if people are going to use the slavery issue, I would like people to defend their "two wrongs make a right" stance. That is, that it is justifiable for the US Government to enslave everyone (conscription) in order to prevent the slavery of others.

Finally, if anyone believes that the South wasn't justified in their succession, just look at what happened. The southerners were bound by a contract (the Constitution) that they didn't sign. By virtue of that, I don't see how anyone can actually bind them to it. If 3 people are on an island and one wants to escape, do the other two have the right to prevent him because they won a majority vote? Do they have the right to kill him when he makes his attempt? All because their grandparents signed an agreement stating that no man is allowed to escape from the island without the consent of the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Change the subject again why don't you. I think the federal government ought to do away with paper dollars... they're rediculous... they should all be coins.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]

Finally, if anyone believes that the South wasn't justified in their succession, just look at what happened. The southerners were bound by a contract (the Constitution) that they didn't sign. By virtue of that, I don't see how anyone can actually bind them to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what government is. Do you think everyone born in the United States should have to sign onto the Constitution before it applies to them?

[ QUOTE ]
If 3 people are on an island and one wants to escape, do the other two have the right to prevent him because they won a majority vote? Do they have the right to kill him when he makes his attempt? All because their grandparents signed an agreement stating that no man is allowed to escape from the island without the consent of the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a bad analogy. The North did not prevent the South from leaving the island. If everyone in the South wanted to pick up and move to Mexico, they certainly could have.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Finally, if anyone believes that the South wasn't justified in their succession, just look at what happened. The southerners were bound by a contract (the Constitution) that they didn't sign. By virtue of that, I don't see how anyone can actually bind them to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what government is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, finally someone admits it. Government is something that is forced upon you without your consent.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think everyone born in the United States should have to sign onto the Constitution before it applies to them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good to me. What if Thomas Jefferson had signed a piece of paper that said "In the year 2006, slickpoppa will pay pvn $3,000,000 per day" - do you think you should be held to that? Why is the constitution any different?

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds good to me. What if Thomas Jefferson had signed a piece of paper that said "In the year 2006, slickpoppa will pay pvn $3,000,000 per day" - do you think you should be held to that? Why is the constitution any different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thankfully a piece of paper declaring that I need to pay you $3,000,000 is a bill of attainder, which would be prohibited by the Constutition.

But more to the point, it would be nice for each individual if he had the right to decide that a particular form of government coercion were unjust and declare immunity from it. But obviously such a system would never work. If everyone could just opt out of whatever laws they wanted to, then laws would be essentially useless. From reading your earlier posts, it sounds like that is what you want--no laws. If you really want to have that argument, then that is the topic of another thread. This thread is about the South seceding from the Union. Even the people in the South who seceded from the Union were not envisioning no government at all after they were successful in seceding.

[XxGodJrxX]

I never consensted to any law that prohibits me from killing, stealing, and raping random women. Perhaps I am not bound by those laws since I never signed a piece of paper where I agreed to such restrictions.