Such rantings from you legalists is always used to justify killing fellow Americans. The arguments are primitive, varied, and subject to interpretation to fit the political agenda. You use your man made rules and org charts to make money and further your agenda and if some fellow human violates some “rule of law” kill him. There is a higher law that bestows a right to life and liberty, and that is God’s law. Get off that legalist BS and follow what is right. Every tyrant who wins a war always paints a rosy picture of himself and vilifies the defeated.
The Confederates would have disagreed with you. They said that only certain people had the right to life and liberty, not all people.
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.
But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Neoliberalnot post #114: "No Freeper would condone the killing of his fellow Americans with desires to simply be left alone."
Neoliberalnot post #122: "I condemn Lincoln for ordering the death of soldiers on both sides.
...you are bean counter stuck with the notion that written rules somehow are to be followed, even if it means killing people who wish to be left alone."
Neoliberalnot post #224: "Your support of the dc empire that became a killing machine for both their own and those that they disagreed with does not fit the red state world view of smaller government that is supposed to serve, not kill, their countrymen."
Neoliberalnot post #247: "No one will ever convince me that killing my fellow Americans is justified to satiate the lust for power and money..."
Neoliberalnot Posts #285/286: "You use your man made rules and org charts to make money and further your agenda and if some fellow human violates some “rule of law” kill him.
There is a higher law that bestows a right to life and liberty, and that is God’s law."
And responses:
BroJoeK responding to post #100: "...the US Constitution, to which we owe due fealty, expressly deals with issues of "rebellion", "insurrection", "domestic violence", "invasion", "war" and "treason".
Those are all unlawful acts, and the Federal Government is required to defeat them."
rockrr responding to post #114: "What’s that got to do with anything?"
rockrr responding to post #122: "The south did not want to "be left alone" - the south merely wanted to do any damned thing they pleased.
The south wasn't going anywhere, but was setting itself as a belligerent, hostile, and aggressive competitor to the nation in a fashion that didn't just invite war, but demanded it."
BroJoeK responding to post #122: "Once the Confederacy started war (i.e., Fort Sumter) and then formally declared war (May 6, 1861), then Lincoln had no other choice.
Constitutionally, he had to defeat the Power which invaded and attempted to destroy the United States."
BroJoeK responding to post #224: "The basic constitutional function of any government, such as the United States, is to defend its citizens against military powers who attack and declare war on it, such as the Confederate States of America.
No real Confederate admitted that they were "countrymen" of Union citizens.
That's why they felt perfectly free to to start and declare war on the United States."
rockrr responding to post #247: "You’ve just captured the essence of the confederacy. Bravo."
BroJoeK responding to post #247: "the 'lust for power and money' began with Deep-South slave-holding secessionists, who first declared their disunion, then immediately started and finally formally declared war on the United States."
_Ditto_ responding to post #285/6: "The Confederates would have disagreed with you.
They said that only certain people had the right to life and liberty, not all people."
FRiends, I've revisited these previous posts because of a certain "broken record" quality to Neoliberalnot's words which makes me suspect something unspoken.
My question is, Neoliberalnot: do you oppose all wars, or only those under Republican presidents?
If you oppose all wars, are you a pacifist?
Do you have a family history of conscientious objection to wars?
I do. Some of my ancestors served in every major American war, but other branches were conscientious objectors to those same wars.
My dad served in WWII, while a distant cousin (recently deceased) did C.O. alternate service in a mental hospital.
So conscientious objectors have been recognized and respected from the beginning of the Republic.
It's nothing to be ashamed of.
If you are a conscientious objector, Neoliberalnot, then I say, God bless you, and go in peace.
I might point out that even conscientious objectors recognize law enforcement as a necessity, which may on occasion require use of deadly force.
But they draw a personal line on participating in such operations.
Nor as jurors will they impose a death penalty on criminals who might normally qualify for it.
Therefore, if pacifism is the real debate with our FRiend, Neoliberal, then it seems somewhat pointless to bring out historical facts about the Civil War.
So, Neoliberalnot, is it?