The coming civil war over abortion: This time, it's not over slavery

Christian Post ^ | 05/17/2019 | Michael Brown

[IrishBrigade]

‘It wasn’t over slavery the last time either.’

yeah, sure; if you say so...

[Dubh_Ghlase]

The article ended by saying “that hell hath no fury like that of the militant pro-abortionists.”

Hell hath no fury like Demons deprived of their innocent blood sacrifice.

If you don't think hell itself (and the people on this earth that serve it) are behind this, you are sadly mistaken....

[Altura Ct.]

While abortion is certainly an issue that shows a great divide in this nation, it is not, and will not be the only issue if we ever get to that point.

[IrishBrigade]

‘Of course it was over slavery.’

what really sparked it was the slave states getting their panties in a wad because the free states exercised their states’ rights and refused to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act arising from the disastrous Compromise of 1850...that’s why I get such a kick out of the confeds today crying ‘states rights, states rights...’

[IrishBrigade]

‘60 MILLION children have already been slaughtered, where are the torches and pitchforks, the legions, the militia, the tanks, the battles?’

for that matter, where is God...?

[IrishBrigade]

‘Based on his actions, he clearly had no intention of achieving that end when he started the war.’

you are aware that the Corwin amendment was initiated and signed by James Buchanan, right...? Lincoln simply stated his intent not to oppose it...

‘If it was all about slavery, why didn’t they take the deal?’

you need to ask that question...? because, flatly stated, they did not trust the free states; because while the north lacked the authority to outright abolish slavery, they went about disrupting it by ancillary methods...the south simply figured a deal with the regarding slavery was not worth the paper it was written on...

rejecting the deal was the south’s decision; as such, the amendment, conceived in stupidity by a desperate president and poorly presented to the states, was a colossal failure...Lincoln’s involvement in it was entirely marginal, but don’t let that fact deter you as you continue to ‘educate’ us...

[bgill]

If we can get a permanent separation from libs, then whatever it takes.

[hanamizu]

The civil War was not about slavery. The south seceded when it realized that it would a permanent political minority.

---

I would say that the slavery issue was a very big part of their being a political minority. I understand that they weren’t happy about tariffs protecting US (northern) industry and money being spent on roads, etc. but slavery was the biggest thing that differentiated the south from the north.

[hanamizu]

Based on his actions, he clearly had no intention of achieving that end when he started the war. If it was all about slavery, why was Lincoln trying to give them all the protection for slavery they could possibly want? If it was all about slavery, why didn’t they take the deal?

---

I believe that the south deeply distrusted Lincoln and the Republican party. So much so that the refused to believe him when he said that he would follow the law and leave slavery untouched where it existed. But he also said that he could not foresee the nation permanently divided over the slavery issue—it would eventually become all free or all slave.

As to why the south didn’t take the deal—southern politicians made lots of stupid (IMO) decisions. Besides thinking they could win a war against the north, they also thought that embargoing cotton sales to Britain to bring that anti-slavery nation into the war on their side being two glaring examples.

If, after secession, California authorities used their National Guard to violently attack Edwards AFB, would any President not respond? SC did attack Ft Sumpter. They no doubt felt that they were within their rights as a sovereign nation/state. Lincoln thought the attack justified a military response.

Could all of this been avoided. Of course, but sooner or later the issue of slavery, which was behind all of it was going to have to be addressed. Very few ‘first-world nations’ in 1860 still had slavery.

[GLDNGUN]

Yes, the first Civil War was over slavery. No matter how you slice it, had there not been slavery in the South there would not have been a Civil War. The lives lost in the War was God’s judgement on the country. Judgement is coming again. The millions of aborted babies requires it. It will be another bloody civil war. When RvW is overturned and abortion ruled to be unconstitutional, states like CA and NY will secede and dare Trump to send in troops to shut down abortion clinics and enforce the ban. Trump won’t back down. THIS IS THE REASON he has been anointed, protected and preserved as POTUS.

[humbleexpert]

The murder of human beings is only acceptable if euphemisms like “choice” or “euthanasia” are used to describe such murders. Even dogs are described as being “put away” rather than killed, since few people want to think of themselves as dog murderers.

The pro-abortion movement has become dependent on the ability of people like Alyssa Milano and Cher to maintain the abortion euphemisms like “pro-choice.” How long can that last?

[DiogenesLamp]

you are aware that the Corwin amendment was initiated and signed by James Buchanan, right...? Lincoln simply stated his intent not to oppose it...

Making excuses for Lincoln. No, he went *WAY* beyond not opposing it, he advocated that it be made "express and irrevocable."

you need to ask that question...? because, flatly stated, they did not trust the free states; because while the north lacked the authority to outright abolish slavery, they went about disrupting it by ancillary methods...the south simply figured a deal with the regarding slavery was not worth the paper it was written on...

A fair conjecture, and quite possibly true. Whatever the right you are trying to keep, such as the right to keep and bear arms, Liberals are always trying to undermine it through "disrupting it by ancillary methods".

But there was no way they could outright abolish slavery in the USA. It was simply beyond possibility, and even Lincoln said he had no power to change it where it existed.

rejecting the deal was the south’s decision; as such, the amendment, conceived in stupidity by a desperate president and poorly presented to the states, was a colossal failure...

It was a colossal failure at it's presumed objective, which was to convince the Slave states that their rights to own slaves would be protected in the USA. But again, why did they want those states anyway? Did they want them *because* they had slavery? Or was it something else?

Lincoln’s involvement in it was entirely marginal, but don’t let that fact deter you as you continue to ‘educate’ us...

Lincoln had no power and no role in amending the Constitution. The fact that he supported this amendment says more about his willingness to sell-out what people thought was a inviolable principle for him, says more about what sort of person he was than it does about anything else.

It makes him look like someone who would do anything for a deal, and yes, he was very much a wheeler dealer. He used bribes, intimidation, and any other method of which he could think to get the 13th amendment passed.

Seward was his Secretary of State because Lincoln wanted his support after Lincoln stole the primary election from him.

[DoodleDawg]

It is absolutely unconscionable that the left will destroy the country and want to kill those who oppose the killing of babies.

They tried to do it 160 year ago to protect slavery. Doing so again to protect abortion wouldn't be a whole lot different.

[NorthMountain]

nd while I hope will all my heart that it will not be a physically violent war

That's a vain hope. The war has been on since 1973; there are already 60,000,000 dead.

[DiogenesLamp]

The civil War was not about slavery. The south seceded when it realized that it would a permanent political minority.

Lincoln switched from maintaining the union as a war goal to abolishing slavery because of the appalling casualties. He needed a moral reason to justify the massive amount of deaths.

Exactly correct. The South had been consistently out voted in every effort to stop the North from taxing them for the benefit of the North, and they realized they would never have enough states to outvote the North.

In the 1860s, the South was paying 73-85% of all the taxes, and *MOST* of their money earned from trading with Europe was ending up in the hands of people in New York and Washington DC. (Same bastards sucking the country dry today)

The South's story has been deliberately mistold to subsequent generations to cover up the money trails leading to New York and Washington DC which are the real causes of the war.

[NorthMountain]

Look this is nothing like slavery

Right. It's far worse than slavery.

[NorthMountain]

for that matter, where is God...?

"We" told Him to go away … so he left "us" to wallow in "our" sins.

[DiogenesLamp]

I would say that the slavery issue was a very big part of their being a political minority. I understand that they weren’t happy about tariffs protecting US (northern) industry and money being spent on roads, etc. but slavery was the biggest thing that differentiated the south from the north.

This ignores the fact that the source of *MONEY* which was paying for the government came 73-85% from Southern produced exports. (For which imports were payment.)

I have come to believe that the slavery issue was just a means of keeping the South in a position so that it could not change a system that was causing a large amount of money to flow into New York and Washington DC.

Liberals today try to use wedge issues like "Abortion", "Racism", "LGBT", and "Healthcare", to convince voters to keep them in power. In the 1850s, they used the Slavery issue to do it, yet when it came to the South leaving, they voted to pass the Corwin amendment, because they wanted to keep that money flowing.

I now think much of the public speaking on the issue of Slavery was Kabuki Theater to secure political power, and the concern over the "expansion of slavery" was just astroturf and interest groups.

[DiogenesLamp]

I believe that the south deeply distrusted Lincoln and the Republican party. So much so that the refused to believe him when he said that he would follow the law and leave slavery untouched where it existed.

They didn't need to believe him. It was literally impossible with 16 slave states in the Union to get the votes necessary to override their opposition. Slavery could not be legally abolished in that era because they couldn't possibly get enough states to vote in favor of this.

Slavery was going to be left untouched wherever it existed anyway.

Besides thinking they could win a war against the north,...

I expect they never believed the North would go to such great lengths to stop them. I'm sure they thought it would work out in the same manner as the American War of Independence. Given that our own Declaration recognized Independence as a right, it was reasonable to believe that people would simply accept their right to gain independence.

they also thought that embargoing cotton sales to Britain to bring that anti-slavery nation into the war on their side being two glaring examples.

Yes, that seems to be rather bone headedly stupid, but I haven't examined that bit of history much. My focus on the civil war has always been on why it happened and who was responsible for starting it and why. After it started, It was a foregone conclusion who would win it. It never should have started.

If, after secession, California authorities used their National Guard to violently attack Edwards AFB, would any President not respond?

Not quite the same thing. More like, if California seceded, and the US Army decided to take over Alcatraz and threaten shipping, and then California tried to talk them into leaving for three months or so, and then a war fleet shows up to attack the Defenders of San Fransisco, *THAT* would be a closer analogy to what happened.

The Confederates had been told by the Secretary of War that all the forts surrounding the entrance to Charleston bay would be turned over to them. The "National Republican" newspaper had also announced that the Fort would be turned over to the confederates.

They no doubt felt that they were within their rights as a sovereign nation/state. Lincoln thought the attack justified a military response.

Lincoln sent the fleet of warships with the deliberate intent of provoking a military response. There was not a cargo ship among them. 5 ships of war, and two, possibly three armed tugboats. The "Baltic" was carrying at least 200 riflemen, shells, powder, and other equipment of war.

Could all of this been avoided. Of course, but sooner or later the issue of slavery, which was behind all of it was going to have to be addressed.

It would have waned in the South, same as it did in the North. It would have just taken longer.

Very few ‘first-world nations’ in 1860 still had slavery.

That's because they weren't producing 230 million dollars per year from it. If you can't make it pay, people can suddenly see moral reasons to get rid of it. None of the other first world countries had any problems buying their goods though.