I thought you might get a kick out of Sarah Palin's bus. Look carefully and read what it says:
"ONE NATION ● UNDER GOD ● INDIVISIBLE ● WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL"
INDIVISIBLE!
("Indivisible" means there can be no secession).
Posted on 08/11/2015 1:11:21 PM PDT by iowamark
What caused the Civil War? That seems like the sort of simple, straightforward question that any elementary school child should be able to answer. Yet many Americans—including, mostly, my fellow Southerners—claim that that the cause was economic or state’s rights or just about anything other than slavery.
But slavery was indisputably the primary cause, explains Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy at West Point.
The abolition of slavery was the single greatest act of liberty-promotion in the history of America. Because of that fact, it’s natural for people who love freedom, love tradition, and love the South to want to believe that the continued enslavement of our neighbors could not have possibly been the motivation for succession. But we should love truth even more than liberty and heritage, which is why we should not only acknowledge the truth about the cause of the war but be thankful that the Confederacy lost and that freedom won.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.acton.org ...
This is the energizer bunny of FR threads. It just keeps on going...and going...and going...
It is a perpetual reunion.
That sounds like a formidable disability and you may be assured that I will not not make fun of you because of it. Again, just try to be patient with yourself.
I'm just a pleased as punch that you have said that!
You've set a good example for others to follow.
You've set a good example for others to follow.
But we threw the baby out with the bath water to get something that was going to eventually happen anyways.
The good thing gained cost far too much. Far too much. We are still paying for it.
No. As I've said several times on these threads, That part he got wrong. Free Blacks had rights back then, and were regarded as citizens.
But as for his ruling on the legal disposition of Dred Scott, it looks to be consistent with the laws of that Era.
That’s right - you posted a “Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?” kinda question. I figured that, with as little thought that went into constructing the sentence you weren’t really serious about an answer.
The price of liberty has always been high. Many, many Americans have given their lives for it.
But, the important thing here is that I wanted to acknowledge your courage in stating your views about slavery. As I pointed out in post 777, there are still a few people out there who are having trouble summoning up the courage to offer an opinion about slavery.
Good for you! ;-)
This is the thread that will not end.
It just goes on and on, my friend.
Some people started posting here not knowing what it was.
And they'll just keep on posting here forever just because.
This it the thread that will not end.
It just goes on and on, my friend...
With apologies to Shari Lewis.
You are overlooking the fact that the war was started to suppress Liberty, not achieve it. That it eventually (several years later) had that consequence for a previously subjugated portion of the population is irrelevant to the actual purpose for which it was fought.
It has had the effect of increasing the subjugation of everyone else.
For what it's worth, I believe there is a thread on Free Republic that has something like 10,000 replies. I saw it a year or so ago.
Well, slavery is an important part of the American story. As you can see, people still have strong feelings about it.
I wish that I could have participated more. But, there are times when I have to leave for a bit and do something that consumes almost all of my time and requires my complete concentration. Then, when we're done with that, I can reclaim my life and even post a bit again. And, as I get older, I need more and more free time.
So, let's do what we can to keep this thread alive. People shouldn't forget that there was a time in our country when people actually owned other people and that it was legal even after we presented the world with a declaration that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
What can be more important than that?
I guess there are people who actually lack the capacity to make moral judgments. At least that's what they claim. But, most people have a sense of right and wrong.
Despite your suggested imperfections, what is your answer?
People should also understand that slavery was ongoing in the Americas from the time of Christopher Colombus. It was a peculiar institution that wasn't begun by any "American". But Americans were the people who finally did put a stop to it (after 300! YEARS). It has only been a mere 150 yrs since emancipation. The dust still hasn't settled.
Slavery was very much ongoing at the same time this very young country was finding its legs. In the timeline, the ramping down of slavery pretty much fairly well coincided with the Declaration of Independence. As the individual sovereign states developed, certain ones made a point of directly confronting the peculiar institution. Philadelphia began immediate steps to eradicate it, while at the same time fully recognizing the laws of adjoining States. Article IV sec 3 (The Fugitive Slave Act) of the Constitution acknowledged that down the road there would be issues that would arise between states solely based on the peculiar practice. Other States took a different approach than Philadelphia. But, Slavery was definitely tangled up in the formative years of the red, white and blue. Lincoln had a full plate, he knew it and he rose to the occasion. Unfortunately, he was shot in the back of the head by a deranged coward ((whose name I don't mention) before he could finish his task. I don't understand how anyone could blame Lincoln for the aftermath that he was deprived from being involved in.
I thought you might get a kick out of Sarah Palin's bus. Look carefully and read what it says:
"ONE NATION ● UNDER GOD ● INDIVISIBLE ● WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL"
INDIVISIBLE!
("Indivisible" means there can be no secession).
Are you incapable of forming a coherent sentence?
Yes, because a New York wrote that in 1892, and Congress adopted it as our pledge in 1942, that totally renders the natural right to independence as described in the Declaration of independence, invalid.
New Yorker. I made a boo boo.
No it was not in anyway consistent with the laws of that era. I posted eariler the example of of Rachel v. Walker and that was just one of dozens of cases where slave state courts found in favor of freedom for the slave in cases identical to Scott.
Taney ignored standing president and then went totally rouge in overturning the Northwest Ordinance as well as the Missouri compromise. More than anyone else, Roger Taney made the Civil War invetiable.
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.