There is a type of fallacious debate in which someone states something that is true, but this true thing being stated does not actually prove the argument which he is attempting to prove.
That is what you have done. Your argument looks like this.
Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
“No, it was about loving your neighbor, whomever he might be.”
No, what? Do you mean “no the verse quoted was not intended to mean Jesus wanted to end slavery?”
The reason I ask is because you invoked God’s name earlier in opposition to the peculiar institution and I want to learn more.
You said: “Yeah. The context.”
Now, by context, do you mean General Sherman's writings during and after the war, his conduct during the war, and his war to extirpate native Americans later . . . is this what you mean by context? I hadn't mentioned these things specifically earlier because I didn't think you wanted word to get around.
War is hell, no doubt. But if you think that was total war I don’t think you know what that means.
The ‘no” meant that He meant love all of your neighbors, not just some chosen subsection of them.
That His command is inclusive of those that some folks want to see enslaved.
And you know as well as I do that it’s true.
Otherwise you wouldn’t mind a bit if you personally fit into a category that it was “okay” to enslave.
I am not correct it directing that to you E.T.. It was BroJoeK that invoked God's name in opposition to the peculiar institution. Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
Thanks for the correction.
No, the Constitution is not silent on the acts of states. Article IV says Congress has the right to lay general rules on acts of states. If a state wants to secede, then Congress decides on how a state accomplishes that.
The majority of Constitutional scholars would say that the Constitution does not codify one way or another the issue of state secession.
Secession is contrary to the first stated purpose of the Constitution.
Violent secession is contrary to several more of those stated purposes.
The Constitution is not a national suicide pact. That’s axiomatic. Wouldn’t be much of a national Constitution if it was.
Ans: 1195 Baltimore Pike.
Yes, the General actually resided in Gettysburg, PA. I had the pleasure of seeing him there in person during the Centennial Commemoration of 1963. Yes, the one hundred year commemoration of the three days battling.
Then he appeared again in Nov 1963 to speak at the 100yr commemoration of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. If Nov 1963 rings a bell; it should. Kennedy was shot within 3 days of Eisenhower's commemorative address so we little note what Ike said.
I am glad to hear he held Lee in such high regard. I do too. I am a yankee, but somewhat of a southern sympathizer. My heroes are all of those that fought in the Civil War.
When I read that Lee, who never spoke about the War, but led a very quiet life as the president of a college, called out to A.P.Hill on his deathbed....... I shed a tear. When I read that Stonewall Jackson's last words were, "let us cross the river and rest in the shade of the trees." I shed a tear.
Lee didn't turn down Lincoln's offer to lead the Union Army based on politics. Lee considered himself a Virginian. Lee's allegiance was to his State.
And Joshua Chamberlin of the 20th Maine.....
Lincoln spoke of a "new birth of freedom" in The Gettysburg Address. Lincoln had a complete and unwavering perspective on his times. He knew that the turmoil was the forging of the new nation, an issue not quite resolved in 1776.
But a majority would say Congress can make the general rules for acts of states, as Article IV says.
If you had been keeping up with the conversation you would be aware that no one is disputing that New York collected the most tariff revenue, but that says nothing about who was paying the bill.
You also ignore the point about 80% of the exports were Southern Agriculture products. Over time, the products going out must be balanced by products coming in, and if 80% of those going out were from the South, then the money side of the equation has to balance somewhere.
The South got paid, so a very substantial part of that money coming back into the country has to be represented by those tariffs collected in New York.
Seems like New York is getting a pretty good vigorish off of other people's production. I can see why the South might be a bit pissed about New York skimming off their profits.
Please. Anyone thinking the confederates posed a threat is not being serious. Lincoln trampled on all sorts of constitutional matters in his efforts to impose his will.
As with most Liberals, and really, that is what he was for his day, he picked and chose what he wanted to support and ignored things he didn't like.
So then you can tell us what the North was selling to Europe?
You just gloss right over the fact that all such were in their own Territory. You also seemingly ignore the fact that they tried to talk compensation with Lincoln, but he refused to discuss the matter.
So Lincoln only did what the US Constitution requires him to do: defeated the military power attempting to destroy the United States.
There you go again with that 20% of the population "attempting to destroy" the other 80%. Do you have any idea how silly that sounds?
How about this? Do you have any grasp of a concept known as "objectivity"?
Mutual consent -- meaning the approval of Congress, or,
That is factually wrong on the face of it. We received no "mutual consent" from the British, so stop wasting my time with bullsh*t.
Neither condition existed in December 1860, and so by our Founders' original intent, Deep South declarations of secession were illegitimate.
Excuse me, but I happen to have read the Declaration of Independence. Here's a copy so you can read it too. There are no such "Conditions" mentioned in that document. It says the exact opposite.
They did not intend it to end in secession, but their intentions do not override what were considered at that time "Natural Rights." The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution, but the Declaration was the founding document. It was the one that created the nation, and nothing inconsistent with it can be rightfully supported by any subsequent acts of man.
All expressed or implied that "dis-union" could only legitimately come from 1) mutual consent or 2) oppression & usurpations "having that same effect."
No they didn't. I shot down that garbage argument in the last message. Secondly, you can't override a principle rooted in the power of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" with acts of men.
You mean he was lying all along, sort of like that other lawyer from Illinois that was against "gay marriage"?
So does this mean the people in the South were right to not trust him? That they called him out correctly?
Yes, Lincoln started out with "If you like your slavery you can keep your slavery." And of course, just like that other Lawyer from Illinois, that simply meant until he changed his mind.
Then how about you tell me what the North was exporting at 25% of the total that is so valuable as to be worth the bulk of the imports? Once again the math doesn't seem to balance here.
At best, those future Confederate states may have accounted for a disproportionate 25% of all US imports, meaning about half of those imports went through Southern ports, and half through northern ports like New York.
Or, if you had happened to read what pea ridge said about the issue, the vast bulk of imports went to New York, and were packet line shipped elsewhere.
This is true on the face of it. Your fancy graphic showing where the money was getting collected is dominated by New York. Do you think New York alone earned all that money from their own exports?
There is a type of fallacious debate in which someone states something that is true, but this true thing being stated does not actually prove the argument which he is attempting to prove.
That is what you have done. Your argument looks like this.
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.