Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1916579)

Yep, which is why I don't celebrate Lincoln. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 1916630)

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...

Don't get me wrong - I think Lincoln was a skillful and one of the best Presidents. I just get sick to death of the constant diefication of him at times, especially for things he didn't say or do.

Originally Posted by XODUS1914 (Post 1916595)

This is going to sound worse than I intended, but perhaps you should.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession.htm
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/missi...eclaration.asp
http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi...n.htm#Virginia

There wasn't a state in the Confederacy that didn't include slavery or 'the right to own property' as one of it's reasons for secession from the Union.In fact, most of the Confederate states identified themselves as slave-holding states in thier letters of secession as to distinguish themselves from the North. If the Confederate flag represents the Confederacy, the the Confederate flag reperesents slavery.
Of course you have the right not to be offended. But understand you are in the shrinking minority especially after the recent comments by the governors of Miss. and Virginia.

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1916640)

I get your point and agree about "constant deification." Lincoln was human, just like the rest of us.

But I do think if you're going to use that quote, it needs to be used in context. Standing alone it can convey quite a different meaning from what I think Lincoln intended.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1916646)

Yeah, which is what people don't understand. Slavery in it's self, he didn't care one way or another.

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1916597)

Not at all. While the two actions have some similarities, they also have differences.

South Carolina didn't "secede" from the United Kingdon in 1776, it declared its independence from the UK. It was a colony of the UK, not a constituent part of the UK. And the only "right" it possessed to declare its independence was what some might describe as a moral or natural right. There certainly was no legal right. Independence was won only by revolution and by treaty at the end of a war.

By contrast, South Carolina in 1860 had ratified the Constitution and thereby esyablished itself as one of the United States. South Carolina's actions in 1860 brought what before had been a hypothetical constitutional question to a head: Could a state that had ratified the Constitution later withdraw that ratification.

Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court in Texas v White held that once a state has entered the Union by ratification of the Constitution, it cannot revoke that ratification. Note this portion (with emphasis added):

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Based on this, the Court held that the articles of secession were null and void as a matter of law.

Originally Posted by girard (Post 1916647)

I am glad you brought that up, too. Slavery was practiced in Africa for centuries before it was practiced in America.

Originally Posted by UofM-TKE (Post 1916651)

I wrote my comment to express my belief in self determination for all people, even Southerners if they chose to exercise it, and the logical problems to which that those who deny self determination must resort. Notice that I do not refer to any legal problems, since we know that any great evil done by a government is always legal to that government and its courts.

Since you took some time to declare me wrong and since your reply is a good example of these problems, I will respond.

Considering the Colonies - America, Great Britain and South Carolina in particular. After we abstract away the redundant, we get this.

SC can leave GB but SC cannot leave A because we are A. This is the definition of Special Pleading i.e. we can do it to them, but you can not do it to us, because we are special.

Except in the case of Virginia and its western counties. V can leave GB but V can not leave A because we are A, except that the western counties of V can leave V because they like A. Twice Special Pleading.

Originally Posted by XODUS1914 (Post 1916653)

This is a common myth, though.

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1916657)

You're new here. Girard is nothing more than the latest incarnation of a guy who's been banned so many times we've all lost count. If the past is any indication, a mod will ban him and delete all of his posts before midnight.

It's best not to feed him. ;)

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1916628)

That's a little brash....

Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 1916630)

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...

Don't get me wrong - I think Lincoln was a skillful and one of the best Presidents. I just get sick to death of the constant diefication of him at times, especially for things he didn't say or do.

Originally Posted by XODUS1914 (Post 1916595)

This is going to sound worse than I intended, but perhaps you should.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1916662)

No. You should. Never assume that you disagree with someone because that person is uninformed and needs to research.