An unnecessary and unjust war

[ivan]

War of Northern Aggression

 

As for relating anything Bush has to do with Lincoln, well, that's absurd. Lincoln was by far one of the brightest men we've had as president, extremely well read and eloquent, and a shrewd politician.

word - his quotes/speeches are like butta!

 

so joining the usa as a state then was like joining a gang? or becoming muslim? once in, you can't get out w/o getting killed by the other members?

 

if the north had choosen to secede from the south, there would be two countries where today there are one. and you can bet secession would be considered legal. in the end, truth is meaningless - strength is everything, and the north was stronger.

 

i would be interested in knowing the opinion of each of the constitution's signers on whether or not they thought the state they signed for would be able to leave the union later if the union failed to live up to the promise of the preamble - i'm sure some of the federalist papers must mention it, but i'd rather have brain surgery then read those in my spare time

[Jim]

so joining the usa as a state then was like joining a gang? or becoming muslim? once in, you can't get out w/o getting killed by the other members?

 

Simplisticly speaking - no. You can't get out, period. And you don't need to go back to the Federalist Papers, lots of historinas have already rummaged those for you. I would seriously suggest the aforementioned book. It is quite an intriguing read.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

As for relating anything Bush has to do with Lincoln, well, that's absurd. Lincoln was by far one of the brightest men we've had as president, extremely well read and eloquent, and a shrewd politician.

 

And a devout Christian. Especially consider his 2nd Inaugural Address. It makes Bush look secular by comparison. Guess you've got to hate him as a religious fanatic mixing church and state.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

so joining the usa as a state then was like joining a gang? or becoming muslim? once in, you can't get out w/o getting killed by the other members?

 

if the north had choosen to secede from the south, there would be two countries where today there are one.

 

i would be interested in knowing the opinion of each of the constitution's signers on whether or not they thought the state they signed for would be able to leave the union later

 

One can make up any hypothetical scenario to support any viewpoint, but all we have to go on is actual events and the body of law that resulted from them. We are a nation of laws, not opinions, however eloquent.

 

One can assume that the Constitution's signatories knew what they were signing. The language is clear, and they were all intelligent men who'd debated the issues to exhaustion. They apparently felt that forming a Union was worth the limitations on State's rights embodied in that document. I think most of us would agree today that they were right in that belief.

 

And, again, a state is not an individual. Laws governing states rights must extend to every individual within that state. For example, a state might choose so secede over the right to own slaves, which is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights. The majority may vote within that state for secession, but it is the federal government's responsibility to prevent that secession to maintain the rights of would-be slaves within that state. That's what being part of a union means; signing up to observing certain rights for every citizen in exchange for collective security and all the other benefits of being part of a larger country.

[Jim]

And a devout Christian. Especially consider his 2nd Inaugural Address. It makes Bush look secular by comparison. Guess you've got to hate him as a religious fanatic mixing church and state.

 

Wrong again. There is absolutely no evidence that Lincoln was interested in organized religion. He never attended services and certainly did not espouse Christian beliefs with his closest advisers. It would be more accurately to say he was a devoutly spiritual man, certainly believed in God, and often used it as a unifying theme.

 

On the other hand you would be more sucessful making the argument that the evangelical movement of the time was a strong force in abolation, and had an effect on how Lincoln framed the issue. As his Presidency moved on, he became more and more aware of the moral imperative nature of keeping the Union together and abolition.

 

On the other hand, Bush is a charlatan. He has used his religious base to help support an immoral war, lied extensively, and totally botched it. If there is any comparison it should be how low the Republicans and the evangelical movement have devolved since Lincoln.

[tvashtarkatena]

There is absolutely no evidence that Lincoln was interested in organized religion. He never attended services and certainly did not espouse Christian beliefs with his closest advisers. It would be more accurately to say he was a devoutly spiritual man, certainly believed in God, and often used it as a unifying theme.

 

 

Actually, historians have not been able to conclude whether or not Lincoln believed in God.

 

Frankly, I'm not so sure Bush's professed faith isn't as just as cynical as his leadership in general. The man doesn't have a truthful bone in his body.

Edited December 11, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

Excerpt from: Mark A Noll, "The Ambiguous Religion of President Abraham Lincoln":

 

Considerable uncertainty arises... when Lincoln's own religion is examined... it is obvious that Christianity exerted a profound influence on his life. His father was a member of Regular Baptist churches in Kentucky and Indiana. Lincoln himself read the Bible throughout his life, quoted from it extensively... during his years as president he did regularly attend the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington. On the other hand, Lincoln never joined a church nor ever made a clear profession of standard Christian beliefs... Lincoln's friend Jesse Fell [suggested that Lincoln's views on Christian theology] were not orthodox... It is probable that Lincoln was turned against organized Christianity by his experiences as a young man in New Salem, Illinois, where excessive emotion and bitter sectarian quarrels marked yearly camp meetings and the ministry of traveling preachers. Yet although Lincoln was not a church member, he did ponder the eternal significance of his own circumstances

[tvashtarkatena]

so joining the usa as a state then was like joining a gang? or becoming muslim? once in, you can't get out w/o getting killed by the other members?

 

Some analogies do involve binding personal contracts. Try enlisting, then walking away in the middle of a battle, stating that you've 'changed your mind', and see what happens.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Excerpt from: Mark A Noll, "The Ambiguous Religion of President Abraham Lincoln":

 

Considerable uncertainty arises... when Lincoln's own religion is examined... it is obvious that Christianity exerted a profound influence on his life. His father was a member of Regular Baptist churches in Kentucky and Indiana. Lincoln himself read the Bible throughout his life, quoted from it extensively... during his years as president he did regularly attend the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington. On the other hand, Lincoln never joined a church nor ever made a clear profession of standard Christian beliefs... Lincoln's friend Jesse Fell [suggested that Lincoln's views on Christian theology] were not orthodox... It is probable that Lincoln was turned against organized Christianity by his experiences as a young man in New Salem, Illinois, where excessive emotion and bitter sectarian quarrels marked yearly camp meetings and the ministry of traveling preachers. Yet although Lincoln was not a church member, he did ponder the eternal significance of his own circumstances

 

READ HIS 2ND INAUGURAL ADDRESS

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Public addresses are a very poor indicator of private belief. They are tailored for public consumption, not private contemplation.

 

For example, during public speaking engagements I rarely state that Bush sucks donkey dicks at ten cents a herd.

Edited December 11, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

I have. Many times, it's great. As is the Gettysburg Address and his speech at Cooper Union. I think you need to conduct a little history research rather than just trying to wedge your preconcieved notions into their appointed box.

[underworld]

Public addresses are a very poor indicator of private belief. They are tailored for public consumption, not private contemplation.

 

 

:lmao:

 

except for bush, right

[tvashtarkatena]

Bush doesn't, apparently, engage in much private contemplation.

[ivan]

so joining the usa as a state then was like joining a gang? or becoming muslim? once in, you can't get out w/o getting killed by the other members?

 

Some analogies do involve binding personal contracts. Try enlisting, then walking away in the middle of a battle, stating that you've 'changed your mind', and see what happens.

i warm to your idea, but an enlistment contract is pretty damn specific as to your obligation (you will serve X numbers of years - and the oath makes you affirm that you have no intention of shirking your obligations in a fight)

 

it just seems to me that, as the states did say they were individually sovereign prior to the constitution, that the constitution would need to be equally specific about forever and eternally trumping that sovereignity as a condition of joining

 

i would never enter into any relationship that i thought impossible to dissolve - it seems strange to me that anyone would - perhaps this is why i failed as a papist?

[tvashtarkatena]

Hence the 14th Amendment. It seems that the guidelines of the contract, however clear the signers thought they were, were either not interpreted equally or were not longer agreed to by Southern parties in the years leading up to the civil war. Either way, the 14th Amendment was a way to stuff a bit of extra caulking in the chinks.

 

Historically, it's interesting to note that few imagined that secession would lead to war in the months leading up to Ft. Sumter. Going to war in general is rough, but going to war against your own countrymen must have been particularly unthinkable to many at the time.

 

Despite my vehement historical/legal arguments (which I still stand by), I'm not sure where I'd personally stand if the PNW decided to scurry off with BC, Yukon and AK to form a new nation. Is adhering to the US Constitution or maintaining the Union worth civil war? It's a nasty, nasty question.

 

Oh, we'd have to include HI, of course.

[Fairweather]

so joining the usa as a state then was like joining a gang? or becoming muslim? once in, you can't get out w/o getting killed by the other members?

 

Simplisticly speaking - no. You can't get out, period. And you don't need to go back to the Federalist Papers, lots of historinas have already rummaged those for you. I would seriously suggest the aforementioned book. It is quite an intriguing read.

 

Then why did it take a multitude of Congressional votes to "re-admit" each and every Confederate state individually back into the union between 1867 and 1870? If succession was never valid in the first place, the rebel states should have been considered wholly American on last day of fighting, don't you think?

 

And Jim, how will Ecotopia ever rise if it is expressly forbidden the right to succession?

[Fairweather]

Despite my vehement historical/legal arguments (which I still stand by), I'm not sure where I'd personally stand if the PNW decided to scurry off with BC, Yukon and AK to form a new nation. Is adhering to the US Constitution or maintaining the Union worth civil war? It's a nasty, nasty question.

 

 

You've just come full circle. A union only on your terms. A case to be made only for your ideals.

[tvashtarkatena]

You've just come full circle. A union only on your terms. A case to be made only for your ideals.

 

...a Union in which I would make you my personal slave.

[Fairweather]

You've just come full circle. A union only on your terms. A case to be made only for your ideals.

 

...a Union in which I would make you my personal slave.

 

 

Fag.

[tvashtarkatena]

...if that is your preference. I believe in beneficent ownership.

[tvashtarkatena]

You will guard my harem of hot ninja lesbian communists. Along with Donald Rumsfeld. With whom you will periodically wrestle in an enormous vat of olive oil. Naked.

[Fairweather]

You will guard my harem of hot ninja lesbian communists. Along with Donald Rumsfeld. With whom you will periodically wrestle in an enormous vat of olive oil. Naked.

 

Your lesbians will be difficult to turn, but I will secretly ply them with verse from Atlas Shrugged and The Road to Serfdom - even if it means I must submit to some sick fem version of waterboarding, or find myself bound at the ankles dragging behind a Jeep Wrangler.

[tvashtarkatena]

You will also be required to attend to the needs of high profile visitors, such as Hugo Chavez, Noam Chomski, and Ralph Nader, when they visit to discuss how we will make the transition to a yoga-based economy. To flatter such guests, you will be required to memorize and cite key passages from "Hegemony or Survival".

 

If, in fact, the lesbians perform a dragging, it will be behind a Prius with "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" on the bumper.

Edited December 12, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Public addresses are a very poor indicator of private belief. They are tailored for public consumption, not private contemplation.

 

 

:lmao:

 

except for bush, right

 

Trashie has merely proven once again his inability to be consistent or logical about anything.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I have. Many times, it's great. As is the Gettysburg Address and his speech at Cooper Union. I think you need to conduct a little history research rather than just trying to wedge your preconcieved notions into their appointed box.

 

The irony of this statement is overwhelming.