Did the North's Civil War victory cause the abortion epidemic?

[awfulthings9]

I don’t think the North had much of a choice, but to go to war.

Why?

And even if war was justified to defend, say, Southern attacks on Federal property, why did the aim of that war necessarily have to include preserving the Union?

Of the Confederate States, 7 left the United States all because Lincoln was elected President. In fact, the Democratic Party split along geographical lines. Had they not done that, Lincoln probably wouldn’t have won.

Yes … but I’m not sure how that relates.

Even with the secession, there probably wouldn’t have been a real call for war…until South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter, either an act of war ala Pearl Harbor, or an act of insurrection/rebellion. The federal government, right or wrong, had no choice but to respond. When Lincoln issued the call for troops, that was when the final four states left and joined the Confederacy.

Okay … here is the answer I asked for earlier in my response, but it still doesn’t explain why preserving the Union had to necessarily be an aim of the war. Why not just retaliate against the South, let them go their merry way and wither from weak economic and political systems?

 

[awfulthings9]

Why stay in the US at all ?​

If it hadn’t been for the migration of tribes from Siberia 15,000 years ago, there might still be mammoths on the other side of the Bering Straits (as they are called). As mammoths can’t vote, Roe v. Wade would not have passed, & most of the US would be a marshy bog infested by dragonflies. And Britain would still be Top Nation

While your post is an attempt to discredit the OP by going to ridiculous extremes, you are correct, the migration of tribes from Siberia is an indirect cause of the abortion problem in the U.S… However, silly extremes aside, the original post asked about a specific connection in visions of government, arguing that the strong central government is established most firmly in the victory of the North over the South in the Civil War.

I was asking about a very specific event with a very specific connection. Your analogy removes that connection, thus making it look as if I picked an arbitrary moment out of history.

Am I missing something? Is there something unfair about making this comparison that warrants someone dismissing it with a hyperbole of this magnitude? If not, then could we possibly either support or dismiss the comparison on its own merits? I think I have shown myself fair enough to concede to good points.

 

[Zooey]

First of all, let me point out, as gently as possible, that** the federal government fired on Virginia and the Carolinas, before we fired back at them, at Fort Sumter**. (A lot of people would love to have us all believe the opposite, but the fact is, that there was no right for the federal troops to invade the sovereign states of the South; Lincoln invented it…Which is, by the bye, the reason that Lee & Jackson were Confederate generals, instead of Northern).

My though it “yes” on both accounts. I will come back and try to post more later, but I think the war was illegal and slavery could have been abolished peacefully. I also believe set the stage for the current system of oppression by a strong federal government. The frightening thing is the continual growth of the federal government, its increased control on personal lives and contiuning restrictions of basic rights.

As far as the causes of the abortion epidemic: They are many. But at least one of the root causes was Abraham Lincoln himself. He invented the imperial presidency for himslef, and this, in turn, led to the imperial judiciary, which gave us Roe v Wade…
He was an immensely evil man, who wreaked havoc on the constitution, and the federals have been wreaking havoc on all our lives ever since…And yes, this includes legalized abortion.
There might have been somebody worse to have in the White House at the time of the War for Southern Independence; but at the moment I can’t think of any; at least no one that was born yet…

 

[consumedconvert]

First of all, let me point out, as gently as possible, that** the federal government fired on Virginia and the Carolinas, before** we fired back at them, at Fort Sumter. (A lot of people would love to have us all believe the opposite, but the fact is, that there was no right for the federal troops to invade the sovereign states of the South; Lincoln invented it…Which is, by the bye, the reason that Lee & Jackson were Confederate generals, instead of Northern).



As far as the causes of the abortion epidemic: They are many. But at least one of the root causes was Abraham Lincoln himself. He invented the imperial presidency for himslef, and this, in turn, led to the imperial judiciary, which gave us Roe v Wade…
He was an immensely evil man, who wreaked havoc on the constitution, and the federals have been wreaking havoc on all our lives ever since…And yes, this includes legalized abortion.
There might have been somebody worse to have in the White House at the time of the War for Southern Independence; but at the moment I can’t think of any; at least no one that was born yet…

Very interesting perspective. While I don’t know that Lincoln was “an immensely evil man,” I do agree that the aura and spin surrounding him often defies the imagination. And that’s from an Illinoisan.

 

[JRKH]

I remember going around and around about this (CSA victory) on history forum a couple of years ago.

The simple fact is that, if the south had won the war, and thereby etablished the precedent for seccesion, neither the USA or the CSA would have survived intact for long. There would be nothing to prevent idividual states, or regions from leaving the Union (or the Confederacy). The result would be a complete colapse of the federal government and a huge rewriting of history.
In a discussion of this type it is important to remember that, even if the Union Victory somehow gave us Roe V Wade, it also gave us the greatest and most powerful Nation on the face of the earth at present.

As far as the Union victory establishing the precedent for federal meddling in states affairs, I think that, regardless of the personages or timing, such interference was inevitable.
However, it is interesting to note that, while the Union Victory sealed the question of cessession, it took many years before the governent began to seriously insinuate itself in the personal lives of it’s citizens. Just look at the legislative history around the early days of the New Deal.

Peace

James

 

[LRThunder]

If the South had won, would we have been able to stand up to Japan and Germany during WWII or the Soviets during the Cold War? I’d doubt it.

 

[consumedconvert]

If the South had won, would we have been able to stand up to Japan and Germany during WWII or the Soviets during the Cold War? I’d doubt it.

Yes, but:

Would the US have used as much oil as two or more nations (meaning, I guess, would we have become as industrialized?)

If not, there would not have been as much competition between the US and Japan for oil, thus much less incentive for them to attack.

Would we have even had possessions such as Guam, or a navy base in Hawaii?

Besides, if they did attack, the nations of the American continent would most likely come together as allies for strength. Theoretically, of course

 

[JRKH]

If the South had won, would we have been able to stand up to Japan and Germany during WWII or the Soviets during the Cold War? I’d doubt it.

That would depend on what “We” there might be. You have to remember that, once the ability to secede is established, there is little to prevent other states from doing just that. States in the Northeast had threatened seccesion in the 1830’s (I think). What would prevent a recurrance. Plus the CSA would have to allow seccesion since that was the basis for the war in the first place.

So - -

Who can say what the national alignment would be by the time of the world wars. In all likelihood the emerging nation-states would devolve into warring factions ripe for picking by each other and by outside forces.

It is a HUGE divergence from the known timeline.

Peace
James

 

[a_priori]

As far as the causes of the abortion epidemic: They are many. But at least one of the root causes was Abraham Lincoln himself. He invented the imperial presidency for himslef, and this, in turn, led to the imperial judiciary, which gave us Roe v Wade…
He was an immensely evil man, who wreaked havoc on the constitution, and the federals have been wreaking havoc on all our lives ever since…And yes, this includes legalized abortion.

:hypno:

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I think the premise of the OP is inherently flawed. It would be like suggesting that the Allied victory in World War II enabled the ethnic cleansings in the Balkans during the 1990s: that one followed the other does not mean that there is a causal relationship – the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

In both cases, one could argue that the later evil may not have happened if the prior circumstance had ended differently, but that does not establish causality.

Peace,
Dante

 

[awfulthings9]

I think the premise of the OP is inherently flawed. It would be like suggesting that the Allied victory in World War II enabled the ethnic cleansings in the Balkans during the 1990s: that one followed the other does not mean that there is a causal relationship – the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

In both cases, one could argue that the later evil may not have happened if the prior circumstance had ended differently, but that does not establish causality.

Peace,
Dante

The premise would be flawed if the OP (me) were asserting that one caused the other simply because one followed the other. I wasn’t. I’m asking if one caused the other, and I’m asking for anyone who asserts that it does (or doesn’t) to give rationale greater than sequential order.

 

[awfulthings9]

If the South had won, would we have been able to stand up to Japan and Germany during WWII or the Soviets during the Cold War? I’d doubt it.

Nice theory, but it has nothing to do with the original post, which isn’t asking if it would have been a good thing or not if the South seceded, but rather just exploring one particular (possible) side effect. I thought that had been made clear in numerous posts by now.

 

[awfulthings9]

I remember going around and around about this (CSA victory) on history forum a couple of years ago.

The simple fact is …

It isn’t so much a simple fact as a simple theory. Either way, I thought your analysis was fair enough.

 

[a_priori]

Connecting abortion specifically to the Civil War is a stretch.

If the South had been allowed to secede without intervention by the Union, it is a fact that people made in God’s image for whom Christ died would have remained enslaved for a longer period of time. The shortest distance between bondage and freedom was exactly the way it happened.

We can argue state’s rights and give our own name to the war but that won’t change the facts. To many Northerners slavery indeed was a secondary concern. The North didn’t have the purest of intentions I’m sure. I know that Sherman didn’t really care about slavery that much.

But, bottom line, enslaved and suffering people were freed. That’s good enough for me.

 

[awfulthings9]

Connecting abortion specifically to the Civil War is a stretch.

If the South had been allowed to secede without intervention by the Union, it is a fact that people made in God’s image for whom Christ died would have remained enslaved for a longer period of time. The shortest distance between bondage and freedom was exactly the way it happened.

We can argue state’s rights and give our own name to the war but that won’t change the facts. To many Northerners slavery indeed was a secondary concern. The North didn’t have the purest of intentions I’m sure. I know that Sherman didn’t really care about slavery that much.

But, bottom line, enslaved and suffering people were freed. That’s good enough for me.

You’ve certainly made the case for the necessity of the war to free slaves. Unfortunately, the purpose of this thread is not to argue against that point. It is examining a side-effect of that effort, whether the effort itself was worthy or not. You’ve not addressed the original post except to say it is a stretch, without explaining why.

 

[stevegravy]

Shellby Foote in the Civil war documentary by Ken Burns made a beautiful observation. He said the Civil W or the War of Yankee Aggression or The War for Southern Independence was a cross road in our nations history. Yes, we went from a United States are to a United States is. And for everything we become both good and bad has its roots in the outcome of that war. And I also think as others have pointed out that power gravitates to those who are greedy for it who want to use it to impose their will on others.

However, the original posit ignores one salient fact, the various states today still have the right to succeed. They just can not do it violently. They need to have 3/4 of the states to agree to call a new constitutional convention and if the outcome of that convention is ratified by 2/3 of the states it will remake the federal government into whatever was passed. Even if what is passed is complete abolition of the federal government. Then the existing federal government can either impose a dictatorship on us or agree to go out of business.

Since this hasn’t happened because of Roe then we have to assume that an insufficient number of people are convinced of its necessity.

 

[a_priori]

You’ve certainly made the case for the necessity of the war to free slaves. Unfortunately, the purpose of this thread is not to argue against that point. It is examining a side-effect of that effort, whether the effort itself was worthy or not. You’ve not addressed the original post except to say it is a stretch, without explaining why.

My point was that some results of the war are very clear and some are not. The slaves were freed. That’s easy.

Abortion came about because mankind has always had the impulse to take the place of God and write his own rules. (“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” -Genesis 3:4,5)

This inclination became somewhat “codified” during the Enlightenment and gained speed as mankind grew in the knowledge of the world around him.

The only thing that was necessary was for medical technology to catch up with the need of many people to avoid being inconvenienced by babies as they want their cake and to eat it too.

Human nature doesn’t change. Technology does. That’s what gave us the abortion problem. Blaming abortion on the outcome of the War doesn’t cut it.

 

[awfulthings9]

My point was that some results of the war are very clear and some are not. The slaves were freed. That’s easy.

Abortion came about because mankind has always had the impulse to take the place of God and write his own rules. (“You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” -Genesis 3:4,5)

This inclination became somewhat “codified” during the Enlightenment and gained speed as mankind grew in the knowledge of the world around him.

The only thing that was necessary was for medical technology to catch up with the need of many people to avoid being inconvenienced by babies as they want their cake and to eat it too.

Human nature doesn’t change. Technology does. That’s what gave us the abortion problem. Blaming abortion on the outcome of the War doesn’t cut it.

You’re right blaming abortion on the outcome of the war doesn’t cut it … which is why that’s not what I’m proposing. Rather, I’m blaming the overreaching power of the federal government (which makes a state-by-state battle against abortion more difficult) on the outcome of the war.

You mentioned in an earlier post that enslaved and suffering people were freed and “that’s good enough” for you. However, as others have pointed out, that could have been done without forcing the South to remain part of the Union. We could have, for instance, went to war with the Confederate states and forced them to abandon slavery, but then allowed their withdrawal from the Union. We could have imposed economic and political obstacles on them which would have whithered the economy until they agreed to abolish slavery.

Your post doesn’t make the case for the necessity of keeping the South in the Union, which is the point of the thread. Nobody, including the OP (myself) ever made the case that abortion wouldn’t have happened, or that it wouldn’t have happened in great numbers (as your thread makes it seem I have), but that the states would be more autonomous to deal with it otherwise.

So, in short, I’m not sure anyone here disagrees with you … we’re just discussing different angles.

 

[awfulthings9]

However, the original posit ignores one salient fact, the various states today still have the right to succeed. They just can not do it violently. They need to have 3/4 of the states to agree to call a new constitutional convention and if the outcome of that convention is ratified by 2/3 of the states it will remake the federal government into whatever was passed. Even if what is passed is complete abolition of the federal government. Then the existing federal government can either impose a dictatorship on us or agree to go out of business.

Since this hasn’t happened because of Roe then we have to assume that an insufficient number of people are convinced of its necessity.

But this is slightly different from what I am suggesting. Needing an agreement of 3/4 of the states (and ratification of 2/3 of them) to completely remake the federal government is far from succession. At least in my understanding. Succession would be as few as one or as many as 49, for that matter, breaking away from the current government, unable to care less about remaking it. Surely this would reek havock on the current government, but the point remains. If a block of ten conservative states had enough with US social policies and wanted to succeed, they would need *permission *(in the form of the 3/4 agreement) from at least three other states to do so. Needing such permission hardly seems like the “right” to succession that was envisioned by, say, Virginia, when it agreed to ratification only under the understanding that it could break away if the central governement grew too powerful.

 

[seagull07]

Here is a reply to somewhat answer the first original question as to whether or not the South had the right to secede from the Union. I apologize in advance for not being able to provide exact dates and years.

The South absolutely had the right to secede. The founding fathers’ intentions were not so that the federal government had complete control over everything, as that would almost be like a monarchy, the very thing that they were fighting against. The South was not treated fairly. The North was industrializing while the South was still and agricultural society still holding barbecues and teas on plantations. The South was paying the government 85% of the taxes while the North was spending 90%. This was obviously not fair and the South felt like they had the right to do something about it; they believed in state’s rights.

And before anyone accuses me of being pro-slavery (not saying that anyone is or would), let me interject this. The American Civil War was not fought because of slavery, however this did become an issue later on because Abraham Lincoln wanted to build morale and support for a war that was continuing with no end in sight (sounds familiar, huh?). Many historical scholars have written and researched this very topic that is seemingly packaged so neatly in elementary school. They can tell you that because of the industrialization of the world, Southern cotton wasn’t doing as well as it had in the past and the South was having a hard time keeping up with the rest. It became less economic to actually have slaves, because if you owned a huge plantation with say, 100 slaves, you were feeding, clothing, and housing them and that was costing you a ton of money. So, the practice of slavery would have died off on its own naturally, and had been for a few years prior to the war.

Plus, there are a couple of precedents for the secession of the Southern states right in our country. New England had previously tried to secede, as well as South Carolina and New York (I believe). Granted, these were obviously unsuccessful attempts at secession, but none of these events triggered a 5 year war.

There is also much debate as to whether or not Lincoln actually had the right to engage at Fort Sumter, as it was, according to some, his way to begin a fight thinking it would be a fast way to keep the South in Union and everything would go back to normal (again, sounding a bit familiar…). Unfortunately it has been awhile since I have looked at my American Conflict and Civil War notes, so I unfortunately can’t provide any greater detail than that.

I know that this is a Catholic forum and I apologize for the history lesson, but I don’t like how people assume that the South was wrong and the Lincoln was right; how the war was about slavery when it was actually about the states just looking for some rights of their own. I’m not lumping people into a category as I have not read all of the responses to this thread, and I apologize if I have offended anyone. I only know bits and pieces of Reconstruction and cannot offer any insight into the abortion epidemic post-Civil War.

However, this late in the game, abortion is wrong no matter what and should be stopped. It’s cruel and inhumane and I’m glad I was given a chance at life (I’m adopted from Korea ). Hopefully many of you are enjoying today in DC at the March for Life. I really wish I could be there as I was there a few years ago and fully enjoyed the experience. I am looking forward to the Pope’s visit to DC though; I’m hoping to be able to get a ticket through my church down here.

Everyone have a blessed day.