Posted on 06/08/2021 7:16:33 AM PDT by rebuildus
That would save a lot of time, but I see a critical flaw in your idea. I won't be around for as long a time as the country would need me. We have to have a better plan, something that relies on rational thinking and common sense.
Your opposition to Plessey v. Ferguson is mildly surprising.
Separate but equal is nonsense. It is nonsense on the face of it. It was a half measure intended to kick the can down the road until society could face the reality of equal meaning equal, not conditional equality.
The Supreme court decisions are full of nonsense half measures intended to hold a position until society changes to reflect what they want.
This is not how law is supposed to work. It should mean the same thing as it meant when it was passed, and this meaning should be consistent until the law is repealed.
I follow Christian doctrine. I believe in the brotherhood of man. All are equal in the eyes of God.
Then I guess the country as a whole will have to limp along without your legal talent, and the Supreme Court in particular will have to learn to live with your disapproval.
Separate but equal is nonsense. It is nonsense on the face of it. It was a half measure intended to kick the can down the road until society could face the reality of equal meaning equal, not conditional equality.<
In Plessey v. Ferguson you had the government imposing a solution on the entire country. In Kelo v. New London you want the court to impose a solution on the entire country. So much for state's rights.
Dodge.
No one cares what you regard.
Ken Burns is an Uber Weenie. And a public TV leftist of the highest stripe. Some of the expert people he got to describe the history were pretty good. I’m think of Shelby Foote.
Maybe that’s the case, Vaquero, but you know what? Ken Burns DID something! Which is more than I can say for a lot of the armchair bitchers on this site. The people who win in life are the ones that act. That’s about as simple as it gets.
He was doing BOTH. History shows that.
You can’t explain every single move in history with conspiracy. Sometimes people actually do the right thing. Freeing the slaves—however messy it was—was the right thing. Can anyone deny this?
“He was doing BOTH. History shows that.”
If Lincoln was “fighting to free the slaves” it was a totally unnecessary fight.
The U.S. Constitution provides a peaceful method of amending the founding document.
Yes, even constitutional slavery could be abolished peacefully with no bloodshed necessary.
Come to think of it you’d better skip this post too..... especially if you only have more ad hominems and no substantive text to respond with. You are right, stay away from children’s wisdom and stick with adult fantasy. (With love)
No.Jeff Davis was a treasonous son of a bitch.
You’re a revisionist with all the historical perspective and political intelligence God gave a curb stone.
Was that before or after Stockley Carmichael and other leaders voted to exclude whites from SNCC events?
“No.Jeff Davis was a treasonous . . .”
Setting aside for a moment your display of personal rancor, on what date was President Davis found guilty of treason?
The reason I ask: it sounds like something you just made up.
That’s really naive! History demonstrates over and over the need to put muscle behind a situation that a mere piece of paper will not remedy. Just look at all the laws we have to day, including Constitutional amendments (2nd, ahem...) that are routinely ignored. The right to life—codified in our Declaration of Independence, has plainly been ignored with millions upon millions of babies murdered in their mothers’ wombs. I could go on and on. I think you really need to re-think your position here.
I don't doubt Edward M. Stanton would have wanted it.
But for political expediency and to quell any lingering Southern resistance to continue the war and ''to bind up the nations wounds'' Lincoln didn't hang him. Incidentally Davis wanted to continue the war from Mexico.
Jeff Davis died pro Union. Did he himself, consider his confederate days as treasonous? Or was he being treasonous to the South when he became pro Union. Kinda hard to figure him out. Leastwise we do know he wore women’s clothes.
That is not a moral stance. Nor was it a moral stance for those Northern congressmen who voted for it. It was a pragmatic stance, devoid of any moral direction.
Politics isn't a competition to see who can be the most saintly or the best martyr. It is pragmatic. It's about compromise and gradualism. Read or read about Max Weber or Reinhold Niebuhr on politics and morality.
We had compromised with slavery from the beginning, so nobody had perfectly clean hands. You could be with Garrison and Brown for immediate emancipation or with Davis and Stephens for the preservation of slavery, or you could work to gradually do away with slavery. That would entail making compromises and accepting half measures, but it wouldn't be immoral, certainly not more immoral than the pro-slavery side was.
If you believed, as Lincoln did that the United States was the last best hope of mankind, then yes, to save the union and keep the country together was in its way a moral stance. An amendment that wouldn't be ratified and couldn't be enforced but could have been a way to prevent war and keep the country together wouldn't have been something to condemn entirely, all the more so since the Confederacy would have kept slavery as long as they could.
If the country could have gotten through the crisis together, it's likely that over time, slavery would have grown less popular and more vulnerable to abolition at the state level. That wouldn't have happened as easily in a new country that was devoted to keeping slavery. Gradual growth of the Republican party and anti-slavery sentiment at the state level was, as I have pointed out again and again, what slaveowners feared, and that is why the amendment didn't win their support. They thought they could maintain control over their slaves better in a country of their own.
Why was it so important to keep the Southern states in the Union? We let go of the Philippines and we let go of Cuba. Why did we need the Southern states? What great loss would it have been to lose them?
We weren't ever going to assimilate those countries. And they didn't attack us.
Well said. It's how you get stuff like this:
I keep trying to tell people that the Republicans of the 1860s were the same liberal socialist Democrats we have today. They even occupy the exact same parts of the country as they did in 1860. The only thing that has changed is their party name.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who let a powerful hatred blind them to the differences between one age and another.
That is what gets to me. He will bend, twist, distort, mutilate facts until they fit his theories. It reminds me of Cinderella’s step sisters mangling their own feet to fit into the glass slipper. His mind is self mutilated. He has done this to himself. And I can’t just let the lies sit there as if they are “facts”.
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.