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

[LRThunder]

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.

With all due respect, the South did not secede because the federal government had too much power, but rather they didn’t like who won the 1860 election…at least that was the reason for the first seven states that seceded.

The South wanted NO compromise when it came to limiting slavery. Most northerners weren’t necessarily in favor of complete abolition, just limiting the expansion of slavery. But for the South (with all due respect to some here), it was all or nothing. Why else did raiders from Missouri ride into Kansas to try to sabotage the election in Kansas to determine free or slave state status?

Ironically, while they might have feared the federal government having too much power, by seceding and starting the Civil War, they pretty much guaranteed the federal government WOULD have more power.

I just don’t have sympathy for those who wanted to leave just because the opposite party won the election.

 

[awfulthings9]

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.

Can you write more about the quoted portion?

 

[Risorgimento]

It seems far-fetched to attribute the abortion epidemic to the North’s victory, but it’s really not.

America wanted to be a democracy from the beginning. They wanted a separation of Church and State, an abolition of any kind of monarchy and aristocracy, etc…Whether you agree with the American cause and democracy or not, that is what they wanted. They had a constitution with explicit state’s rights.

So as atrocious as slavery is, the North was not justified in waging a war of aggression to force the South back into the Union. Everyone knows that the North’s motives for the war were economic and political and talk of abolition of slavery only surfaced when things started looking up for the Union army. And yes, they set a precedent for the government over-riding state’s rights which is exactly what enabled something like Roe vs. Wade to happen and have its catastrophic consequences.

DISCLAIMER: I am in no way justifying or endorsing the evils of slavery, but if you want to get technical and speak in terms of “rights” (which Americans love to do), then the South was justified in seceding from the Union. (and I think its safe to say that if the South were a separate country today that neither slavery nor abortion would be legal…and we might not have the greedy Protestant work ethic of northerners or their love of the “almighty dollar” that plaques our country today)

 

[seekerz]

DISCLAIMER: I am in no way justifying or endorsing the evils of slavery, but if you want to get technical and speak in terms of “rights” (which Americans love to do), then the South was justified in seceding from the Union. (and I think its safe to say that if the South were a separate country today that neither slavery nor abortion would be legal…and we might not have the greedy Protestant work ethic of northerners or their love of the “almighty dollar” that plaques our country today)

Give your question a historical and word view: abortion in some shape or form, to some extent or the other, has always plagued society. The only difference now is that the law enables its proponents.

Who’s to say that there were more or less abortions in the 1800’s vs today or in the North vs the South; surely the women of yesteryear would not have volunteered that information, so are there really going to be reliable statistics? Abortificients have always existed. The world was a different place and violence/immorality had different manifestations. Some things were much better then, some things were many times worse.

Today, abortion is legal in much, if not most, of the world, so to think that the South would have somehow been different had the war gone differently is to be unrealistic.

 

[MAKirwan]

How can you even equate the two? There is legalized abortion in most countries and they were not involved in the Civil War. Abortion is the “final solution” in a culture that is sexually liberal. It crosses all barriers, race, religion, wealth, nationality etc. The sexual revolution did not begin in the US. Europe has always been more liberal. Even today the US is conservative by European standards, or more correctly, lack of standards.
I don’t see any connection between the Civil War and abortion.

An interesting point is whether or not the Constitution in 1860 had regulation which would prohibit any state from leaving the Union. Maybe some scholarly history buff could give an opinion. If not then South Carolina was legally entitled to secede. Once seceded they were free of Federal law. At that point Fort Sumter would have been outside the jurisdiction of the US Govt. and the Federal garrison in Fort Sumter would have been a foreign army on the sovereign soil of South Carolina, which not only refused to leave but was in the process of being reinforced.

 

[seagull07]

Can you write more about the quoted portion?

I will hopefully soon, after I consult with my books (like I had said, it’s been awhile since my Civil War class), but I would be happy to discuss and also point you to sources.

 

[seagull07]

With all due respect, the South did not secede because the federal government had too much power, but rather they didn’t like who won the 1860 election…at least that was the reason for the first seven states that seceded.

The South wanted NO compromise when it came to limiting slavery. Most northerners weren’t necessarily in favor of complete abolition, just limiting the expansion of slavery. But for the South (with all due respect to some here), it was all or nothing. Why else did raiders from Missouri ride into Kansas to try to sabotage the election in Kansas to determine free or slave state status?

Ironically, while they might have feared the federal government having too much power, by seceding and starting the Civil War, they pretty much guaranteed the federal government WOULD have more power.

I just don’t have sympathy for those who wanted to leave just because the opposite party won the election.

Could you point me to some of your sources???

 

[johnnykins]

I haven’t bothered to read the entire thread. Mea culpa.

However, let me just say that Webster and the Unionists certainly had the better of the argument on the ability of the states to secede: The United States is a compact of states and NO STATE had/has the right to unilaterally secede. Just as no party to a contract has the right to unilaterally terminate the contract - so the Souther States by purporting to secede went into rebellion and followed up by taking bellicose actions leading to war.

Calhoun was clearly wrong as a matter of law, and the Confederates were traitors. Granted they tried hard to wrap the cover of legality around them, but it was and is a sham.

As far as this goes the issue of slavery, and the immorality of that institution and its impact on the war, need not even be addressed. I do note that the states’ right that was the basis for the secession was, of course, slavery. The immorality of the Confederacy is plain to all but the most obtuse.

How any of this impacts Roe is merely a fantasy of guesswork.

 

[pontoon]

Yeah I think someone has got it correct. Yes slavery was the emotional issue of the civil war and no one is for slavery. But the real issue and it has never been resolved is States Rights vs big central governement. Today the Northeast and liberal west(the 9th circuit court) are forcing their law on smaller God fearing states. Think for a minute how many states have to follow the liberal rulings coming out of San Franciscos 9 th circuit court of appeals. If there was less central government people would have more of a say in the laws. For example if California, Boston, New York and New Jersey wanted gay marriage, abortion, legal drugs, socialist medicine, anti Christmas, wanted to remove God from the public areas and remove school pray let them. But if Alabama wants to display the tn comandments, make abortion illegal, have school pray, Have God Bless America, keep marriage between a man and women, and have families pray together then let them. If we had States Rights and less Federal government there would be less abortion and more Jesus in this country. But you all just keep voting for those Nancy Pelosi catholic democrats and Jesus will continue to lose

 

[Lance]

The abortion epidemic is caused by people believing that they know more about right and wrong than the Catholic Church and therefore not following what the Catholic Church teaches. Europe and Asia have abortion epidemics and the War of Northern Aggression had absolutly nothing to do with them.

 

[seekerz]

Yeah I think someone has got it correct. Yes slavery was the emotional issue of the civil war and no one is for slavery. But the real issue and it has never been resolved is States Rights vs big central governement. Today the Northeast and liberal west(the 9th circuit court) are forcing their law on smaller God fearing states. Think for a minute how many states have to follow the liberal rulings coming out of San Franciscos 9 th circuit court of appeals. If there was less central government people would have more of a say in the laws. For example if California, Boston, New York and New Jersey wanted gay marriage, abortion, legal drugs, socialist medicine, anti Christmas, wanted to remove God from the public areas and remove school pray let them. But if Alabama wants to display the tn comandments, make abortion illegal, have school pray, Have God Bless America, keep marriage between a man and women, and have families pray together then let them. If we had States Rights and less Federal government there would be less abortion and more Jesus in this country. But you all just keep voting for those Nancy Pelosi catholic democrats and Jesus will continue to lose

It should be that simple…but really, it’s not. Let’s suppose for a moment that abortion was illegal in some states and not in others, what would prevent people from crossing state lines to get one? How would that decrease the number of abortions overall? Each state would have to be a separate country with it’s own borders, restricting the flow of people between them.

Just as an aside, do we have any statistics to compare the frequency of abortion (not simply the surgical procedure, but any form of abortion) say, 100 years ago versus today?

 

[pontoon]

it would make it more difficult and perhaps people would think a little longer and harder about what they are doing. Making it more difficult to get an abortion does help reduce the mass murder.