Should killing in self-defense be removed too?

[SeattleUte]

Wuap, I don't accept your nihilsm. The fact is slavery and Jim Crow have beem eliminated in our country. Everybody isn't racist and it isn't that the South is just more honest in its racism (I know the South is fond of revising history; it used to be that slaves were better off as such; later it was that the Civil War wasn't primarily about slavery; the argument that the South in racism is just more honest is a new one on my experiece). Were the South left to its own devices it might have taken until 1978 to stop its apartheid. It was the North, led by a Northern president, who put a stop to slavery by waging the Civil War. Justice Warren was from California. It was likewise a Northern president who introduced the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but granted a president from Texas signed it into law.

[woot]

Wuap, I don't accept your nihilsm. The fact is slavery and Jim Crow have beem eliminated in our country. Everybody isn't racist and it isn't that the South is just more honest in its racism (I know the South is fond of revising history; it used to be that slaves were better off as such; later it was that the Civil War wasn't primarily about slavery; the argument that the South in racism is just more honest is a new one on my experiece). Were the South left to its own devices it might have taken until 1978 to stop its apartheid. It was the North, led by a Northern president, who put a stop to slavery by waging the Civil War. Justice Warren was from California. It was likewise a Northern president who introduced the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but granted a president from Texas signed it into law.

So you think the civil war was primarily about slavery?

[SeattleUte]

So you think the civil war was primarily about slavery?

yes, I do.

[SeattleUte]

So you think the civil war was primarily about slavery?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14678&highlight=slavery

[UtahDan]

The American founding was, in part, about removing Churches from government, not about removing religion or religiously informed morals and ethics from government.

[woot]

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...hlight=slavery

Did you end up reading that book? What did you think? Either way it's a much more complicated issue than you seem to think it is, and certainly doesn't warrant calling anyone who disagrees a moron.

I visited the Lincoln Memorial last year and was struck by how many quotes were shown in which Lincoln declared unequivocally that uniting the country was his first priority, and that if he could do it without freeing the slaves, he would.

[UtahDan]

Did you end up reading that book? What did you think? Either way it's a much more complicated issue than you seem to think it is, and certainly doesn't warrant calling anyone who disagrees a moron.

I visited the Lincoln Memorial last year and was struck by how many quotes were shown in which Lincoln declared unequivocally that uniting the country was his first priority, and that if he could do it without freeing the slaves, he would.

Yes another person comes to my back yard and doesn't say hello.

[SeattleUte]

Did you end up reading that book? What did you think? Either way it's a much more complicated issue than you seem to think it is, and certainly doesn't warrant calling anyone who disagrees a moron.

I visited the Lincoln Memorial last year and was struck by how many quotes were shown in which Lincoln declared unequivocally that uniting the country was his first priority, and that if he could do it without freeing the slaves, he would.

No, I didn't, but the war was about slavery. It is NOT a complicated issue. Generally only southern apologists (something hard for me to fathom, and that I wouldn't take you for) take that position. Creekster put it well here:

Here is another way to look at it: The south seceded because of slavery, on this I think we can all agree. The North forced their hand by refusing to compromise on slavery and by leaving the South with no alternative but to choose between staying in the union without slaves or trying to leave the union to keep slaves. THe North could have said "keep your slaves, as union is most important to us" but they didn't. THye refused to make that compromise. SO the south secedes and the North fights to force them back. Is it simply a matter of the union or is it slavery? It is impossible to look at the issue and take slavery out of the equation. Absent slavery, there is no war.

Why do you think Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation years into the war? He had come to realize that the bloody cost could only be justified if the war was about slavery. The political will to wage the war was always in dobut. He almost lost the second election to McClellan, who was anti-war. Lincoln talked a lot about the Union, he talked as much about Liberty.

Don't lecture me on the Lincoln memorial. 3D will vouch that I have shed many a tear there. The LM is my temple.

[UtahDan]

Why do you think Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation years into the war? He had come to realize that the bloody cost could only be justified if the war was about slavery. The political will to wage the war was always in dobut. He almost lost the second election to McClellan, who was anti-war. Lincoln talked a lot about the Union, he talked as much about Liberty.

I agree with you that the war doesn't happen absent slavery though I don't think one can generalize regarding what it was "about" because that was very much in the eye of the beholder. The average southern soldier, for example, didn't own slaves and that is not what the war was about for him. Still, without that issue there is no secession.

Interesting that Lincoln freed the slaves in the Confederacy to bolster support for the war in the North, while not actually freeing any slaves in the North (Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri)

[SeattleUte]

I agree with you that the war doesn't happen absent slavery though I don't think one can generalize regarding what it was "about" because that was very much in the eye of the beholder. The average southern soldier, for example, didn't own slaves and that is not what the war was about for him. Still, without that issue there is no secession.

Interesting that Lincoln freed the slaves in the Confederacy to bolster support for the war in the North, while not actually freeing any slaves in the North (Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri)

If you read the linked thread you will see that I make the point that the South lost the war because it was about slavery, but the average soldier was not wlling to fight a sorched earth confict like Russia vs. Napoleon or Stalin vs. Hitler because he was not invested in slavery. This gap between the common soldier's interests and what the war was really about lost the war for the South. Because of the Union's benevolence post-war, the inherent evil of slavery, and the lack of rank and file commitment to slavery, there was no resolve to fight the kind of guerilla defense that could have won the war. This does not mean that the war, such as it was, was not about slavery. There is always dissonance between the aims and motivations of the political or dictatorial leaders and the rank and file soldier. The rank and file soldier fights out of duty to the motherland.

[woot]

No, I didn't, but the war was about slavery. It is NOT a complicated issue. Generally only southern apologists (something hard for me to fathom, and that I wouldn't take you for) take that position generally. Creekster put it well here:



Why do you think Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation years into the war? He had come to realize that the bloody cost could only be justified if the war was about slavery. The political will to wage the war was always in dobut. He almost lost the second election to McClellan, who was anti-war. Lincoln talked a lot about the Union, he talked as much about Liberty.

Don't lecture me on the Lincoln memorial. 3D will vouch that I have shed many a tear there. The LM is my temple.

I don't see how you can quote Creekster's nuanced post and then claim that it's not a complicated issue. I also wasn't lecturing anyone about anything.

[SeattleUte]

The American founding was, in part, about removing Churches from government, not about removing religion or religiously informed morals and ethics from government.

You might want to look at the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. They talk about "religion".

Your latter point is no point at all since religion has in a big way informed all our civil morals and ethics.

[SeattleUte]

I don't see how you can quote Creekster's nuanced post and then claim that it's not a complicated issue. I also wasn't lecturing anyone about anything.

I don't see any "nuance" in this (the post's concluding sentences):

It is impossible to look at the issue and take slavery out of the equation. Absent slavery, there is no war.

--Creekster

[happyone]

I agree with you that the war doesn't happen absent slavery though I don't think one can generalize regarding what it was "about" because that was very much in the eye of the beholder. The average southern soldier, for example, didn't own slaves and that is not what the war was about for him. Still, without that issue there is no secession.

Interesting that Lincoln freed the slaves in the Confederacy to bolster support for the war in the North, while not actually freeing any slaves in the North (Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri)

My understanding is one of the major reasons that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclaimation was to keep Britian and France from recognizing the Confederate States, and thus keep them out of the war. This also affected the timing of the Proclaimation. He had to wait for a victory in order not to look desperate.

[UtahDan]

You might want to look at the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. They talk about "religion".

Your latter point is no point at all since religion has in a big way informed all our civil morals and ethics.

So you agree with me. The founding was not about removing the set of ideas that informed all our civil morals and ethics from government, it was about keeping government from either establishing those ideas or interfering with their practice.