Should killing in self-defense be removed too?

[SeattleUte]

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.

It was about ensuring religion was out of government, not about only enacting laws that were thouroughly sterilized of any religious influence. Yes, of course, I've never suggested otherwise.

[UtahDan]

It was about ensuring religion was out of government, not about only enacting laws that were thouroughly sterilized of any religious influence. Yes, of course, I've never suggested otherwise.

I understand, but it is a distinction that not everyone in this thread has picked up on. Just trying to help!

[woot]

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

That would be a good point if anyone were advocating that slavery wasn't one of the reasons for the civil war. We're not, so it isn't.

Also, the bolded portion is an unfortunate attribute. Try reading the whole post rather than just the last sentence.

[SeattleUte]

That would be a good point if anyone were advocating that slavery wasn't one of the reasons for the civil war. We're not, so it isn't.

Also, the bolded portion is an unfortunate attribute. Try reading the whole post rather than just the last sentence.

lol David Herbert Donald, Shelby Foote, James McPherson, Carl Sandberg, Gore Vidal, and Creekster agree with me. No one agrees with you! You are officially a moron!

Through two threads on two boards the best you can come up with is that the war was fought over the Union or not. DUH! Guess why the South tried to rip the country in half. S-L-A-V-E-R-Y. The worst part of your argument is the immorality of it. You are advocating the Klan's POV. A darwinist in bed with the Klan. Gross!

[woot]

lol David Herbert Donald, Shelby Foote, James McPherson, Carl Sandberg, Gore Vidal, and Creekster agree with me. No one agrees with you! You are officially a moron!

Through two threads on two boards the best you can come up with is that the war was fought over the Union or not. DUH! Guess why the South tried to rip the country in half. S-L-A-V-E-R-Y. The worst part of your argument is the immorality of it. You are advocating the Klan's POV. A darwinist in bed with the Klan. Gross!

Well Einstein and Yahweh agree with me! Nyah Nyah! Seriously, SU. The quoted post might have the greatest ratio of logical fallacies per word I've ever seen.

Was today a rough day or is the civil war in the same category as sports where you just forget to think before you post?

[SeattleUte]

Well Einstein and Yahweh agree with me! Nyah Nyah! Seriously, SU. The quoted post might have the greatest ratio of logical fallacies per word I've ever seen.

Was today a rough day or is the civil war in the same category as sports where you just forget to think before you post?

You are the one citing the Lincoln's Gettysburgh Address and Second Inaugural Address carved into his Memorial as support for your belief that the war was not about slavery. I have at least read Donald, McPherson and Bruce Catton. Seriously, if you want to read what the war was about McPherson's book is a good single volume primer.

[woot]

You are the one citing the Lincoln's Gettysburgh Address and Second Inaugural Address carved into his Memorial as support for your belief that the war was not about slavery. I have at least read Donald, McPherson and Bruce Catton. Seriously, if you want to read what the war was about McPherson's book is a good single volume primer.

You've again misunderstood my point. I've never once claimed the civil war "wasn't about slavery"; just that it wasn't primarily about slavery. I don't deny that it played a huge role. What I've read leads me to believe that it was secondary to the unity of the union, is all. You think that makes me a moron. Perhaps not having read the same things you have does make me a moron. This really isn't a topic I care very much about, and I haven't read anything about it in several years at least.

You have acted in a supremely childish manner in this thread and the one on CG, and I wonder what it is about this topic that causes your IQ to drop 50 points, and perhaps more importantly, why this set you off in such a manner as to destroy whatever camaraderie we've developed as the board apostates. You owe me an apology.

[wuapinmon]

You have acted in a supremely childish manner in this thread and the one on CG, and I wonder what it is about this topic that causes your IQ to drop 50 points, and perhaps more importantly, why this set you off in such a manner as to destroy whatever camaraderie we've developed as the board apostates. You owe me an apology.

SeattleUte and I have had a completely civil dialogue in spite of serious distance between our viewpoints.

[All-American]

You are the one citing the Lincoln's Gettysburgh Address and Second Inaugural Address carved into his Memorial as support for your belief that the war was not about slavery. I have at least read Donald, McPherson and Bruce Catton. Seriously, if you want to read what the war was about McPherson's book is a good single volume primer.

I'm halfway through it, myself. Good stuff. Not sure how the review was, though, but I'm sure SU could fill you in on that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

[SeattleUte]

You've again misunderstood my point. I've never once claimed the civil war "wasn't about slavery"; just that it wasn't primarily about slavery. I don't deny that it played a huge role. What I've read leads me to believe that it was secondary to the unity of the union, is all. You think that makes me a moron. Perhaps not having read the same things you have does make me a moron. This really isn't a topic I care very much about, and I haven't read anything about it in several years at least.

You have acted in a supremely childish manner in this thread and the one on CG, and I wonder what it is about this topic that causes your IQ to drop 50 points, and perhaps more importantly, why this set you off in such a manner as to destroy whatever camaraderie we've developed as the board apostates. You owe me an apology.

Sorry to offend. I apologize completely. Seriously. I do not wish to destroy any comraderie. I appreciate your candor at taking offense. I was just fooling around. Not to be defensive, but I do think that if you read your posts you will see that you yourself can be quite insulting when in a disagreement. You also inevitably sound quite sure of yourself, even when addressing subjects you care little and have read little about.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that you don't care much about this subject nor have read much about it. This does happen to be a subject I care about, and I think it's critical the Civil War be remembered as even more than primarily about slavery. But I need not trouble myself about this. It does seem that you are alone in contending it was not primarily about slavery. This does strike me as an astonishing claim in this day and age. Those scholars I listed would indeed disagree with you.

Indeed, not in a spirit of acting childish or belittling, let me refer you to the linked Wikipedia article, not because I think that this is the best source or your typical reading fare, but yet another example of a source that agrees completely slavery that was not merely the overriding, but the exclusive cause of the Civil War. You will note that under "Causes of Secession" there is but one heading, "Slavery," and the introductory part of this section talks exclusively about Southern fears that Lincoln, newly elected, would seek legislation to abolish slavery, as the catalyst for secession.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War"]American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:American_Civil_War_Montage_2.jpg" class="image"><img alt="American Civil War Montage 2.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/American_Civil_War_Montage_2.jpg/300px-American_Civil_War_Montage_2.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commo ns/thumb/9/95/American_Civil_War_Montage_2.jpg/300px-American_Civil_War_Montage_2.jpg[/ame]

Regardless, whether you, with your admittedly limited and less than fully invested exposure to this subject, agree with me or not, our national self-identity and ethos rests on a bedrock assumption that the Civil War was about slavery. You won't find an argument that it wasn't even primarily about slavery anywhere this side of a 1950's Deep South school book.

[All-American]

Sorry to offend. I apologize completely. Seriously. I do not wish to destroy any comraderie. I appreciate your candor at taking offense. I was just fooling around. Not to be defensive, but I do think that if you read your posts you will see that you yourself can be quite insulting when in a disagreement. You also inevitably sound quite sure of yourself, even when addressing subjects you care little and have read little about.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that you don't care much about this subject nor have read much about it. This does happen to be a subject I care about, and I think it's critical the Civil War be remembered as even more than primarily about slavery. But I need not trouble myself about this. It does seem that you are alone in contending it was not primarily about slavery. This does strike me as an astonishing claim in this day and age. Those scholars I listed would indeed disagree with you.

Indeed, not in a spirit of acting childish or belittling, let me refer you to the linked Wikipedia article, not because I think that this is the best source or your typical reading fare, but yet another example of a source that agrees completely slavery that was not merely the overriding, but the exclusive cause of the Civil War. You will note that under "Causes of Secession" there is but one heading, "Slavery," and the introductory part of this section talks exclusively about Southern fears that Lincoln, newly elected, would seek legislation to abolish slavery, as the catalyst for secession.

American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless, whether you, with your admittedly limited and less than fully invested exposure to this subject, agree with me or not, our national self-identity and ethos rests on a bedrock assumption that the Civil War was about slavery. You won't find an argument that it wasn't even primarily about slavery anywhere this side of a 1950's Deep South school book.

One point that often goes overlooked, by the way, about the idea that slavery was the main issue of the Civil War.

It was the central issue of the Civil War, no doubt. So too was nullification the central issue of the aptly named nullification crisis. For northern states that chewed on the idea of secession during the war of 1812, it was the war of 1812. Slavery was also central to Wisconsin's response to the Fugitive Slave act, whereby they essentially tried to nullify it during the Joshua Glover trial.

Both north and south tried on the secession and nullification arguments when it suited their cause. You'll see the same thing happen today when a divisive issue comes up. When you're on the losing side of a national issue, you'll appeal to states' rights. Par for course.

My point? What the Civil War did was decide not only the issue of slavery, but also the issue that gave wings to nullification and however many other disputes arose prior to 1861: what was the nature of the Union between the states? We knew that the United States were not a collective group of entirely sovereign entities, nor one nation subdivided into different political districts, but we didn't know at what point between the two we were. We still thought of the United States as a plural entity and not a singular one.

None of this trumps the importance of slavery, of course. These issues were undecided when South Carolina tried to resist tariffs in the 1830s, as well. It took an issue of the magnitude of slavery to bring a need to resolve the question of federalism that was otherwise not worth the blood of an entire generation. But suffice it to say, there were a lot of people for whom slavery was not the reason they picked up their gun. Lincoln maintained that slavery was incidental to the cause of preserving the union, and George Henry Thomas, a Virginian, grew up in a slave-holding plantation, but fought for the Union; Robert E. Lee himself thought of slavery as a moral and political evil. To these people, who had at least a small part in the events of the era, it wasn't all about slavery.

It's kind of a dumb debate, all things said, because everybody knows that slavery was central to the war. It's all a matter of framing the debate and the perspective from which you view it, but nobody is really disputing any facts.

[SeattleUte]

One point that often goes overlooked, by the way, about the idea that slavery was the main issue of the Civil War.

It was the central issue of the Civil War, no doubt. So too was nullification the central issue of the aptly named nullification crisis. For northern states that chewed on the idea of secession during the war of 1812, it was the war of 1812. Slavery was also central to Wisconsin's response to the Fugitive Slave act, whereby they essentially tried to nullify it during the Joshua Glover trial.

Both north and south tried on the secession and nullification arguments when it suited their cause. You'll see the same thing happen today when a divisive issue comes up. When you're on the losing side of a national issue, you'll appeal to states' rights. Par for course.

My point? What the Civil War did was decide not only the issue of slavery, but also the issue that gave wings to nullification and however many other disputes arose prior to 1861: what was the nature of the Union between the states? We knew that the United States were not a collective group of entirely sovereign entities, nor one nation subdivided into different political districts, but we didn't know at what point between the two we were. We still thought of the United States as a plural entity and not a singular one.

None of this trumps the importance of slavery, of course. These issues were undecided when South Carolina tried to resist tariffs in the 1830s, as well. It took an issue of the magnitude of slavery to bring a need to resolve the question of federalism that was otherwise not worth the blood of an entire generation. But suffice it to say, there were a lot of people for whom slavery was not the reason they picked up their gun. Lincoln maintained that slavery was incidental to the cause of preserving the union, and George Henry Thomas, a Virginian, grew up in a slave-holding plantation, but fought for the Union; Robert E. Lee himself thought of slavery as a moral and political evil. To these people, who had at least a small part in the events of the era, it wasn't all about slavery.

It's kind of a dumb debate, all things said, because everybody knows that slavery was central to the war. It's all a matter of framing the debate and the perspective from which you view it, but nobody is really disputing any facts.

Substance vs. Procedure. As you say, states' rights is an expediency. It was a rationale for secession. But the immediate motivation for secession was the desire to preserve the institution of slavery in the South. Nobody was too interested in preserving States' rights as they were complaining about delayed federal aid after Katrina.

If the war was all about preserving the Union, the Union could have been preserved absent war. All the country would have had to do was make a pact not to abolish slavery in the South (memorialized in a Constitutional Amendment). But slavery had become intolerable in the industrialized North. It was abolished in Europe, the Enlightenment was past, the modern age and the industustrial revolution were upon us. Slavery was intolerable even if it meant the South seceding and the North losing a resulting Civil War. Even if it meant risking the Union, even if it meant losing the Union. After all, victory was not inevitable. (It's remarkable the North was able to subjugate the South, vast as it was. This is more a measure of the South's lack of a deep grass roots commitment to the war, becuase it was about slavery.)

Likewise, from a different end of the telescope, a fact little realized among lay people is that the legal basis for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which regulates completely private behavior, is the Constitiution's Interstate Commerce Clause. In legislating that a malt shop owner in rural Alabama could no longer refuse service to blacks, were the President and Congress really concerned about Interstate Commerce?

It's not a dumb debate because appreciating the moral driving force for the Civil War is important to appreciating the arc of human progression in terms of what matters most. A Civil War was foreordained from he time that the Constitution referenced slaves and also contained a Bill of Rights.

[woot]

SeattleUte and I have had a completely civil dialogue in spite of serious distance between our viewpoints.

That's generally been the case for SU and I as well. I think both of us just like to argue so while we often do agree on things, our interactions are adversarial as often as not. I guess I just don't appreciate being called a moron by someone I thought I shared mutual respect with. I think between Creekster's old post and AA's new one, any point that I had has been made, as I basically agree with both of them.

I also don't disagree with SU all that much. I don't have a problem with the civil war as primarily over slavery, as long as the other issues aren't forgotten. I think this is probably because issues related to slavery are a lot more important in today's America than issues related to the unity of the states; the states are so united at this point as to largely obviate a lot of their individual distinctiveness. So, even if Lincoln's desire to concretize the union is the reason that slavery caused a civil war (How's that?), a little bit of revisionism to say that slavery was the sole cause of the war is far more acceptable than the converse would be, as demonstrated by SU's wicked attempts to paint me as a member of the KKK.

And as usual, the devil's advocate has caused far more light to be shed than would have been the case otherwise, so my work here hasn't been for naught.

[RobinFinderson]

And as usual, the devil's advocate has caused far more light to be shed than would have been the case otherwise, so my work here hasn't been for naught.

Plus, you are sexier than usual when you get all worked up. SU was just doing me a favor. Hot, woot, HOT!