Posted on 11/03/2015 6:52:26 AM PST by don-o
No. You dodged the question. I didn't ask you what was the Republican Party's platform in 1860. I asked you what was the UNION's (Meaning the Government's, meaning Lincoln's) Intentions on slavery at the start of the war?
“. . . .I will say then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about, in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races.
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters of 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 forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” - Abraham Lincoln
“. . In this enlightened age, there are few, I believe, but what would acknowledge, that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country, [and] it is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.
…
The Blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa; morally, socially, and physically, and that while we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is onward, and we must give it all the aid of our prayers and all justifiable means in our power […] emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influence of Christianity than from the storms and contests of fiery controversy. - Robert E, Lee
Tau: “Whenever I hear people claim that the Southern secessionists had an indisputable right to do chop the United States into pieces...”
Declaration of Independence: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them...”
It’s in the very FIRST SENTENCE.... how did you miss that???
Grade: D-, go back and study more.
Yes, Lee was against slavery, and this is why I dismiss notions from people who think the South would not have eventually given it up. Social pressure eventually works, especially if it is constant.
Does anyone doubt that the social pressure to abolish slavery would not have been constant?
The war was a horrible tragedy that could have, and should have been avoided.
“Jefferson thought he didn’t have the right to acquire Louisiana, but he did so anyway. If I remember correctly, he also didn’t believe he had the right to impose an embargo but did so anyway. Pragmatism?”
Well, sure but that is an expected level of pragmatism, that is different from the unbridled, unrestrained pragmatism that Lincoln, and many Presidents after him pursued. There’s a vast difference between a President acting with uncertain authority, in order to accomplish goals that do not trample on rights, and a President acting in a way which is specifically forbidden, and trampling half the nation’s fundamental rights in the process.
Basically, what Jefferson did was take a cookie from the jar without permission, while Lincoln confiscated everyone else’s cookies.
“When you read the article, you will see that the author of this piece suggests that there are “several branches of conservatism” that “venerate the South as the paragon of American liberty.””
I think that’s just hyperbole, so why are you so focused on it? Pretty much everyone else that read that dismissed it for what it was, but you seem focused on it, as if the author’s poor assessment of conservatives actually proves a point?
“Do you venerate the antebellum South as the paragon of American liberty?”
No, but I do correctly acknowledge that Lincoln laid the foundation for changing the United States from a country where the power flowed from the people, from the ground up, to our current nation where power resides in the hands of our betters in Washington, who view our rights as mere obstacles. The fact that he instituted that change by using the excuses of war, and ending slavery is pretty immaterial to me. I don’t care why he did it, only the results matter to me.
No different then they had been before the South started the war.
Another dodge-the-question answer coupled with an asinine little dig which is irrelevant to the point.
I really didn't think I would get any more honesty out of you. I was surprised that you admitted "The fact of the war is that the Union motivation was to preserve the Union."
To actually admit that this, and not the abolition of slavery, was the reason why Lincoln ordered the invasion of 35,000 men is something that will have to wait for another time I suppose.
Lincoln's position at the time was "If you like your slavery, you can keep your slavery."
No just failure of comprehension on your part. Lincoln and the Republican position on slavery was no different the month after the South started the war than it was the month before the South started the war. I don't know any other way to put it.
I really didn't think I would get any more honesty out of you. I was surprised that you admitted "The fact of the war is that the Union motivation was to preserve the Union."
How else would any rational person answer that?
To actually admit that this, and not the abolition of slavery, was the reason why Lincoln ordered the invasion of 35,000 men is something that will have to wait for another time I suppose.
Don't put words in my mouth. Lincoln fought the war that the South forced upon him.
Lincoln's position at the time was "If you like your slavery, you can keep your slavery."
And Davis's position was "We'll keep our slavery and start a war to take your proprty, too."
No, Lee was not.
"If you want your slavery, you can keep your slavery."
Then it was the exact response your question deserved.
Yes, I can see why asking what was the motivation of the US Federal government in sending a 35,000 man invasion force into another State would appear to be nonsensical to you.
Everyone intellectually honest already knows it wasn't sent there to stop slavery. It was sent there to stop independence.
But really the question wasn't intended to find out what was their reasons, it was intended to find out whether or not you were intellectually honest, and yes, "nonsense" is exactly the response I expected from you.
Honesty would have been a complete surprise.
That wasn't what you asked. Your question was "What was the Union's intentions on slavery at the start of the war?" and I answered it. Now if your question is "Why did Lincoln fight" then the answer is "Because we were attacked." Duh.
But really the question wasn't intended to find out what was their reasons, it was intended to find out whether or not you were intellectually honest, and yes, "nonsense" is exactly the response I expected from you.
So you are trying to find if I am intellectually honest by deceiving me with your question? How honest is that?
You did not answer it. You've dodged it every time you pretended to answer it. You can try again if you are so inclined, but I doubt that you are.
Whatever I say you're going to accuse me of dodging it again so I don't think I'll bother.
Good dodge. That's a lot easier than just admitting "Lincoln intended to do nothing about slavery."
But that would not be true. Lincoln would have done everything in his power to end the spread of slavery into the territories. He could do nothing about slavery in the states where it existed, and he knew it.
But that would not be true. Lincoln would have done everything in his power to end the spread of slavery into the territories. He could do nothing about slavery in the states where it existed, and he knew it.
And that's about the closest i'll get to a straight answer. So if Lincoln could not do anything about it, then the war wasn't started or fought over slavery.
You need to make this clear to the other people who are arguing on your side. They seem to think the war was fought to abolish slavery.
It had that eventual consequence, but that was an after the fact justification, not a motivating principle in initiating the conflict.
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.