Seems to me the death of 600,000 Americans is somewhere on the same scale of Moral Evil as Torture. You could belabor the point, I suppose, but they both seem pretty Evil to me.
It was not a war of conquest, it was a war to end a rebellion.
That's a "Fugitive Slave Law" type of argument.
It's Immoral either way you slice it.
You're still attempting to justify 600,000 deaths for what was, originally, a War to Collect Taxes.
The US included the southern states. The states did not form the federal government as individuals, but rather the entire people formed it.
Actually, the United States were formed by the Conventions of the Sovereign States. It's not as if the People of the United States followed the Biblical Methodology of Unanimous Individual Consent, as was required for the Ratification of the Israelitish Covenant (Deuteronomy 27:14-26).
I've heard this Argument from Federalists before, and it doesn't fly. You're attempting to use a Deuteronomy 27 argument (Unanimous Individual Consent) to justify a Forcible Union between Sovereign States.... but that's not how the Constitution was Ratified.
The Constitution was Ratified by the State Coventions, not "the entire people".
And, therefore, the Contractors were the States, not "the entire people".
If 9 states were necessary to put the constitution in effect, no single state could then withdraw.
That theory (the impossibility of Secession) was never explicitly stated in the Constitution, wasn't what the States agreed to, and in fact was a theory which was rejected by the Founders.
Several States specifically reserved the Right to Secede, and no-one ever doubted the propriety of their Reservations at the point of Ratification.
Compacts between states are specifically forbidden without the permission of Congress. The constitution guarantees to each state, a republican form of government.
Irrelevant, if the States had already voluntarily chosen to exit a voluntary Contract.
Considering that there was no income tax at that time, and that free trade depended on federal navy patrols of the sea lanes, it is silly to think that the south should benefit from free trade, (selling cotton free of tarriffs) and not even pay for their imports. Tax plantation is a mixed metaphor, and is unfair. The north paid many times what the south paid in tariffs.
I could argue the point based on the South's disproportionate payment of Import Tariffs... but I won't.
If Secession was such a bad economic deal for the South, then that would be their own mistake to make. If that was the case (I'll allow it, just for the sake of argument), then it was murderously wasteful of Lincoln to spend $6 billions of dollars and 600,000 lives just to prove an economic point.
Yes, the entire south is also my country, and anyone pretending to remove part of it will be resisted. Lincoln didn't launch an invasion, he responded to armed insurrection on US territory.
Sorry -- my house belongs to me, not you. You don't own anything but what you personally own, yourself. Identifying your Own Self with your Federal Government doesn't change the basic Biblical Law against Trespassing.
I think that it is moral to kill terrorists. That is not murder, it is necessary. Would you suggest that when the terrorist comes to kill you, you should bend your neck to his blade, lest you commit murder? Darn foolish argument.
There were no Southern plans for any invasion of the North, until *after* the Federals invaded the Confederate States.
When an army resists, fighting in a bad cause (insurrection, slavery, racial injustice) fighting against that army in a good cause) ending insurrection, ending slavery, securing federal property purchased by the Government, and improved at the cost of all federal tax payers) that is not murder. It is ending insurrection and reestablishing justice and the rule of law. The connection between tariff and trade protection is well known. The theft of government property by rebels during the waning months of the Buchanan administration is well known.
You're still attempting to justify the waste of Billions of dollars and 600,000 American lives in order to justify... a War to Collect Federal Taxes.
I'm sorry. I can't buy into that sort of "morality". I just can't buy it.
Give to Caesar what is Caesars. Give to G-d what is G-ds.
That's precisely my point. See, I was there with Operation Rescue back at the Wichita "Summer of Mercy" in 1991, and I try (as best I am able) to define my Politics in terms of "What Would Jesus Do"? I'm by no means perfect, on any of a variety of fronts, but I try to look up to that standard even if I fail personally.
I can imagine that Jesus would have worked for the Underground Railroad, "Fugitive Slave Law" be damned. I can imagine that Jesus would have thrown Himself before the doors of an Abortion Clinic, to be beaten and dragged away by the Federals in defense of the Unborn. I don't claim that my imagination is necessarily correct, but I could see Him defending the defenseless in such manner.
That being said, I have a hard time seeing Jesus haul out a shotgun and blaze away at an abortion doctor, his nurses and his bodyguards, the way Paul Hill did; and I have a hard time seeing Him ordering the Deaths of 600,000 Americans... just to collect Lincoln's Tariffs.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I'm open to your point of view, but I'm not much sold as yet.
Best, OP
I am not Jesus, and do not pretend to act as he did. Nor do I recommend that others act that way. As I recall, Jesus's sacrifice was accomplished once, for all. To commit sin and then emulate his sacrifice is an element of the Khlisty heresy, as did the Mad Monk, Rasputin.
When you think of the death of the 600,000 Americans, ask yourself, who killed them. Rather a lot were killed by rebel fire. I have a hard time blaming that on Lincoln.
Great Work BTTT!