Replies

I was afraid you'd say that. Tell me, is a constitution that allows abortion on demand as a means of birth control worth living under?

Abortion violates the principles of the Constitution just like slavery did. It violates the the principles of the Preamble.

I believe that slavery is morally better than abortion on demand as a means of birth control. A slave had the hope of individual or general emancipation. He could also hope to escape to Canada. Failing that, he was at least alive and could hope to change his status in the future. An aborted child has no hope. Being an aborted child is a status from which there is no appeal, no hope of better days. It is final and irrevocable.

I don't know which one I'd rank worse. They both steal lives.

This republic is good, but not perfect. The manner in which we go about seeking to improve the republic says a lot about who we are. We have constitutional ways of making the republic better. Northern abolitionists were impatient with these ways and deliberately sought to undermine the republic and its constitution.

Northern abolitionists decided almost 100 years of the injustice of slavery was enough and knew that the way to save the Constitution was to eradicate the practices that violated it's principles.

Their means deserve our disapproval, even when we applaud their ends. And both the means and the ends of their consolidationist northern allies deserve our disapproval.

This country lived a lie until the Radical Republicans acted.

Don't be melodramatic. Secession would not have "dissolved the Union." The Union would have continued just as before, only smaller, but, as Horace Greeley said, better, because it would have been slavery-free.

We would've lived an existence of warfare just like Europe if we had divided.

Well, you're mixing up your chronology a little here. The Confederacy didn't "attack" Kansas until 1863 and 1864.

What was all those "bleeding Kansas" stories about then. The CSA was pro-slave. The pro-slave states wanted all the new states to have their same morality. They by no means wanted to be left alone.

As for Fort Sumter, it was "attacked" on December 26, 1860 by Major Anderson. Before that night, it was occupied only by construction workers. South Carolina had a right to occupy the fort (as long as they paid the US government for the fort and the property in it), since it was built to defend Charleston from invasion, but it was abysmal politics to fire on it, as Robert Toombs said at the time.

It was United States property. China didn't attack Hong Kong for 100 years simply because it was in the way. You should have left what wasn't yours alone.

My recommendation to Jefferson Davis would have been to negotiate with Great Britain for duty free trade with the Confederacy for ten years, provided that the trade would be carried in British-flagged ships. That would have put the ball back in Lincoln's court. If he does nothing, the Confederacy wins its independence by default. If the US Navy attempts to stop British ships to collect import duties, the Brits would have fought that and the Confederacy would have the world's greatest Navy on her side.

Britain couldn't win in 1776, they certainly couldn't win against 23 million Americans in 1860. Their time had passed as far as forcing their will on America. If they thought they could beat the union, they would've tried no matter what the deal they made with the South. They knew they couldn't and therefore steered clear of us.