Why do you contend secession alone was sufficient? The question had been around for 80 years and there was vast disagreement on the matter.Yes. In fact had the war been intially sold to the North as a vehicle to end slavery there would have been NO support for it. In effect the South overplayed their hand.
Becuase it was secession that caused the North to go to war. Again go to the orignal sources . Read what the speeches and editorials of the day were. Recll Horace Greely’s “Let the Wayward Sisters Go” editorial.Why do you contend secession alone was sufficient? The question had been around for 80 years and there was vast disagreement on the matter.
Do you think a peaceful declaration of independence by the South without the slavery factor would have led to a war? Would a peaceful declaration of independence by the New England states have led to war?
You are right, that is the Catholic choice and should be any human’s choice. Killing your child to save yourself is a pretty bad since of morality - especially since in my experience, most of those who are in that already very rare circumstance would live by other means for the balance of their pregnancy and then be able to tackle the cancer.I don’t know…but those cases do come up.
And I think the Catholic choice would be to have the child…
BUT - that doesn’t mean it’s easy to come to that conclusion…no matter how religious or devout you are.
Again, the question isn’t about the proximate cause, but whether it would have bene a proximate cause without the slavery issue.Becuase it was secession that caused the North to go to war. Again go to the orignal sources . Read what the speeches and editorials of the day were. Recll Horace Greely’s “Let the Wayward Sisters Go” editorial.
As far as would a secession of the New England States have caused a war-absolutely. In fact this option was openly discussed twice by the New Engalnd States-once in 1803 over disagreemnt with the Louisiana Purchase and once again in 1813 over their disagreemnt with fightning the War of 1812. In both cases they were pulled back from the brink by blunt warnings that such a secession would be met by military intervention.
As every school child knows, hostilities began when South Carolina troops fired on Fort Sumpter. Lincoln, no fool, allowed passions to rise and the South to commence hostilities.Why do you contend secession alone was sufficient? The question had been around for 80 years and there was vast disagreement on the matter.
Do you think a peaceful declaration of independence by the South without the slavery factor would have led to a war? Would a peaceful declaration of independence by the New England states have led to war?
The ironic part is that Lincoln was not the Boogey Man the South made him out to be… He had no intention of trying to outlaw slavery, He did, however, want to stop its spread into new States and Territories(a diffcult propostion, given Dred Scott).As every school child knows, hostilities began when South Carolina troops fired on Fort Sumpter. Lincoln, no fool, allowed passions to rise and the South to commence hostilities.
Had the Confederates not fired on Union forces first, it would have been difficult, if not impossible to sell the people of the Union on the war.
Having been a school child, I realize this. I presume you had similar schooling?As every school child knows, hostilities began when South Carolina troops fired on Fort Sumpter. Lincoln, no fool, allowed passions to rise and the South to commence hostilities.
Had the Confederates not fired on Union forces first, it would have been difficult, if not impossible to sell the people of the Union on the war.
OK. Was there anti-slave sentiment in the North? did it have any effect on ensuing events? Did it have any effect on the North’s willingness to go to war?The ironic part is that Lincoln was not the Boogey Man the South made him out to be… He had no intention of trying to outlaw slavery, He did, however, want to stop its spread into new States and Territories(a diffcult propostion, given Dred Scott).
The idea that slavery was ended only after the “hearts and minds of the people” was changed is ludicrous.
You have chaged the discussion. of course slavery was a variable., You however contended that slavery was ended only becuase “the hearts and minds of the people changed”, which is simply not true and also claimed that the North went to war primarily becuase of slavery, also not true. As I pointed out twice before the US has threatend States considering secession and in neither case was slavery a variable.Having been a school child, I realize this. I presume you had similar schooling?
My question is whether there would have been war absent anti-slavery sentiment in the North. Given your observation about Sumpter, one has to ask if the South would even have felt the need to fire if there had been no anti-slave sentiment in the North. The permutations go on, but do you think there was anti-slavery sentiment in the North, and did it have an effect on the ensuing situation? Or, as Bob contends, was Northern anti-slave sentiment not a variable?
The lesson is we must press for the end of abortion by all legal means. That includes making politcial pariahs out of anyone who supports killing our Children.OK. Was there anti-slave sentiment in the North? did it have any effect on ensuing events? Did it have any effect on the North’s willingness to go to war?
And, what lesson do you see in all this for abortion opponents?
You mistake my position. I content the hearts and minds were necessary to end slavery. If I gave the impression it was necessary and sufficient, that was wrong.You have chaged the discussion. of course slavery was a variable., You however contended that slavery was ended only becuase “the hearts and minds of the people changed”, which is simply not true and also claimed that the North went to war primarily becuase of slavery, also not true. As I pointed out twice before the US has threatend States considering secession and in neither case was slavery a variable.
How do you make someone a pariah unless the people support your position? You can’t do it alone. Hearts and minds?The lesson is we must press for the end of abortion by all legal means. That includes making politcial pariahs out of anyone who supports killing our Children.
Jackson is also the only President I am aware of that defied the Supreme Court! You are correct about the so called “Tarrif of Abominations” That was the closest the South came to seceding before 1861. When they did finally did seceed the Tarriff in place had recieved more Southern Votes than Norhtern votes and was mentioned only in passing in most of the Articles of secession.You mistake my position. I content the hearts and minds were necessary to end slavery. If I gave the impression it was necessary and sufficient, that was wrong.
You have pointed out the threats in the past. I note they were against far smaller entities than the whole South, and we don’t know if the threats would have been carried out. Your strongest argument in this vein is probably the Jackson/Calhoun/Clay/SouthCarolina tariff situation. We should note that both sides climbed down from that one when Clay negotiated the tariff reduction, Jackson signed it, and SC agreed.
But Jackson is your strongest argument for a unionist position backed up by force. We just don’t know if he would have done it.
I suspect that we are parsing words, I am complaining about those who say we can not do anything about abortion until the hearts and minds of the people are changed. I say we work ceaselessly to end this abject evil, give no quarter to those who support or enable those who implememt it and if that means dragging the people kicking and screaming along with us so be it.How do you make someone a pariah unless the people support your position? You can’t do it alone. Hearts and minds?
Here’s where I look at the practical aspects. One certainly doesn’t have to wait for hearts and minds before doing anything else. The most obvious would be a campaign to win the hearts and minds. But, under our system, there is really no way to drag anyone along. How do you do it?I suspect that we are parsing words, I am complaining about those who say we can not do anything about abortion until the hearts and minds of the people are changed. I say we work ceaselessly to end this abject evil, give no quarter to those who support or enable those who implememt it and if that means dragging the people kicking and screaming along with us so be it.
Then what is your point vis-a-vis slavery and abortion?Having been a school child, I realize this.
When Secretary of War Stanton visited England after the war, he addressed the House of Commons. In the course of his speech, he mentioned “this great war to end slavery.”My question is whether there would have been war absent anti-slavery sentiment in the North. Given your observation about Sumpter, one has to ask if the South would even have felt the need to fire if there had been no anti-slave sentiment in the North. The permutations go on, but do you think there was anti-slavery sentiment in the North, and did it have an effect on the ensuing situation? Or, as Bob contends, was Northern anti-slave sentiment not a variable?
It started with my observation that one can’t get rid of abortion unless one has the hearts and minds of the population. Bob responded with an analogy to slavery. You can follow the exchange from there.Then what is your point vis-a-vis slavery and abortion?
When Secretary of War Stanton visited England after the war, he addressed the House of Commons. In the course of his speech, he mentioned “this great war to end slavery.”
And the whole house of Commons got to its feet and roared back, “No! No! The Tarriff! The Tariff!!”
Let me get this straight; you cite the Civil War, in which 600,000 men were killed and large sections of the nation devastated as an example of “changing hearts and minds?”It started with my observation that one can’t get rid of abortion unless one has the hearts and minds of the population. Bob responded with an analogy to slavery. You can follow the exchange from there.
No.Let me get this straight; you cite the Civil War, in which 600,000 men were killed and large sections of the nation devastated as an example of “changing hearts and minds?”
Then . . . what is your point?