The Gettysburg Address

That one had declared and waged war on the USA and the other had not? (With exception of some pretty nasty riots in Baltimore, burning of bridges, etc.) But those were acts of individuals, not formal acts of the state.

But...but...but...but SLAVERY!!!! Remember that? That was why they were invading!!! Or at least that is what most people would have us believe.

From what was going on at the time, it's pretty apparent that Lincoln decided to go to war, and the declaration of war on the part of the Southern states was no more than an acknowledgement of the defacto status of the Union forces set to invade.

Whereas, the President of the United States of America has issued his Proclamation, making the requisition upon the states of the American Union for seventy-five thousand men, for the purpose as therein indicated of capturing forts, and other strongholds of the jurisdiction of, and belonging to the Confederate States of America, and has detailed Naval armaments upon the coast of the Confederate States of America, and raised, organized and equipped a large military force to execute the purpose aforesaid, and has issued his other Proclamations announcing his purpose to set foot a blockage of the ports of the Confederate States;

Also, why exactly do you think the USA should have invaded MD?

Because SLAVERY! It' pretty much the only d@mned argument I ever see to explain why the Union invaded the South. It's been drilled into everyone's head that the Union invaded the South to stamp out the evil slavery, but this notion is designed to distract from the fact that Union was really about Preserving it's authority over people who didn't want it, and nothing else.

The fact that they ignored Maryland (until much later) and that Lincoln was willing to keep slavery in late 1862 pretty much puts the lie to the argument that the North invaded to abolish slavery. It didn't. It invaded to maintain control over this area and prevent it from becoming an independent nation. Same as old George III.

You keep coming back, like you're stuck, to implying that I'm trying to say the Union had identical war aims in May 61 to those it had in May 63 or 64. I've never said any such thing.

I keep coming back to it because it is constantly being offered as the only reason (not necessarily by you) the North invaded. The main aim of the war in May 61 was still the main aim of the war in 63, and that aim was to prevent Independence for the Southern states. The only thing that got tacked on was that after it looked like they were going to win, they added the goal of abolishing slavery.

Their initial reasons for invading were immoral, and contrary to the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence. They added the moral goal of abolishing slavery after the fact.

Wars have a way of changing people's attitudes and minds.

Yes they do. Especially when Lincoln and crew were in the habit of jailing people who didn't agree with them. Not till Woodrow Wilson did we see anything like it.

They had been in favor of compromise and conciliation to bring peace.

So long as that peace meant the Southern states couldn't leave. That was pretty much the sticking point throughout the entire war. Everything was negotiable except for that.

Why do I argue about this? Why is this such a sticking point? Because the events of 150 years ago are still causing problems today. We are facing a horrible and out of control Federal leviathan that is eating everything in sight, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that we are not going to be able to stop it.

At this point, I wish the sane states could break away and leave this disaster in the making. Let the Liberal states have this behemoth and let it bankrupt and ruin them.

The problem is, too many people have now got it in their head that leaving is illegal, and simply refuse to recognize that people ought to have the right of self determination. They ought to be able to leave if they wish without the fear that armies will come marching into their communities to force them back under the control of Fedzilla at the point of a gun.

Like I said, the damage done to this fundamental principle by the civil war is still being felt today.

people ought to have the right of self determination. They ought to be able to leave if they wish

Umm, you are aware, I assume, of the glaring problem in holding this belief and defending the CSA at the same time?

There are, of course, only two ways around it.

Either you (and the CSA) don't really mean it. ALL men don't have this right.

Or you decide that some humans aren't "really" men. Some in the CSA took one route, some the other.

Route A means you essentially have to throw the Declaration of Independence overboard, as Calhoun, Stephens and others did. All men "aren't" created equal and the Founders were just wrong.

I believe others in the South went down Route B and decided Africans weren't really human, so the Declaration didn't apply to them.

Which POV do you agree with?

BTW, I don't mean to insult the South unnecessarily here. That blacks weren't human or fully human was the general wisdom in the North too, and indeed throughout the world.

Not many people today realize that at the time it was what was taught as science. To reject it meant tossing overboard was taught both by the Church, for the most part, and by Science. Most of those who did so reached this POV for Christian reasons.

Umm, you are aware, I assume, of the glaring problem in holding this belief and defending the CSA at the same time?

There are, of course, only two ways around it.

Either you (and the CSA) don't really mean it. ALL men don't have this right.

It was the founders that didn't really mean it. They were the ones that espoused this principle, and they were also the ones that built the system to accommodate slavery as well as kept slaves themselves.

You keep trying to make *ME* the target, but your target is the founders who built this deliberate dichotomy into the system.

Naturally I believe these principles ought to apply to everyone, but the North wasn't going to war to defend these principles, they were going to war to oppose these principles.

Or you decide that some humans aren't "really" men. Some in the CSA took one route, some the other.

And here is this backdoor attempt to portray anyone who defends the idea of self determination into a horrible person because the people who did it before kept slaves.

Route A means you essentially have to throw the Declaration of Independence overboard, as Calhoun, Stephens and others did. All men "aren't" created equal and the Founders were just wrong.

You are still trying to blame me for the built in dichotomy. Your attacks (Route A, Route B) need to be directed at the founders where they belong.

Again, it is obvious by their behavior that they never intended for the Declaration to apply to slaves. Every single state was a slave state at the time. Now it is YOU who must make a determination. Either the founders were idiots and too stupid to realize they were freeing all the slaves with that declaration, or that they were choosing deliberately lofty sounding words to make their document sound better, and though they said "all men" they didn't really mean all men, they meant British subjects who lived in the colonies, which doesn't sound quite so grand and noble.

Again, judging by their own behavior, it appears that they let the rhetoric get away from them, and a lot of unintended consequences resulted from their desire to use pretty language.

Certainly Massachusetts immediately applied the principle to slaves. Well, not immediately. It took them four years, but they were faster than the rest.

Which POV do you agree with?

I don't agree with either. If you are familiar with debate, you are aware of the fallacy known as "false choice." You have been trying to push on me a false choice.

As I pointed out, I can believe that the founders never intended to apply the Declaration to slaves (because the evidence supports this) but that they did intend to apply it to the former British Subjects of which the Southern States were also made.

I can also believe that what the Southern States did was consistent with the meaning and principles invoked by the Declaration, and what the Northern states did in forcing them back, was not.

I can further believe that even though the founders didn't intend to apply the Principles in the Declaration to slaves, they ought to have clearly said so instead of obscuring this point by trying to sound all noble in their declaration. It caused much grief that they did not.

I can further believe that these principles ought to have been applied to slaves, and that slavery never should have existed in the first place, but it is patently clear that the declaration did not, nor was it intended to abolish slavery.

The difference between conservative and liberal judicial thinking is whether or not you are going to apply the law as it was actually intended, or whether you are going to twist a new and unintended meaning out of the law to suit your own personal preference.

Conservatives interpret the law as it was meant to be applied when it was written. Liberals twist it to suit the latest fad. When Massachusetts cited the Declaration to abolish slavery, they were deliberately distorting it's original intent, which was to free colonists, not slaves.

Conservatives do not have to agree with a law to interpret it correctly. With liberals, if they don't agree with a law, they simply will ignore original intent.

No one except you is making any such claim.

You will have to be more clear. You do not indicate which claim you are referring to.

Are you referring to the claim that the North invaded to abolish slavery, (made by most who defend what they did) or are you referring to the claim that they invaded to stop independence for the Southern states, and later added the goal of abolishing slavery after it looked like they were going to win?

From the evidence I can see, the Northern motive for entering the war were to force the South back under the control of Washington DC. That was the one non-negotiable point that was consistent throughout the war.

It was made very clear by the Union Leadership that the South could keep slavery, but they couldn't keep Independence.

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.

-Abraham Lincoln-August 22, 1862

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.