Let's talk Civil, shall we?

[K.Snyder]

Originally Posted by Hoss

I think your exactly right, if we just do our jobs, and not try to makes things happen our way we'd be much more successful and pass on much better conditions to our children.

What about the children of slaves?...

I ask all,..would you or would you not wage war on the South to emancipate slavery?...

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by K.Snyder

I'd have to assume a weaker North would be more vulnerable to being taken over by foreign interests wouldn't you?...

Yes, of course weaker is more vulnerable, but I don't see your point.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by K.Snyder

What about the children of slaves?...

I ask all,..would you or would you not wage war on the South to emancipate slavery?...

The Civil War was never about slavery, it was about states' right to secede from the Union. At least two states that fought for the North were slave states, if I recall correctly. Slavery was definitely part of the debate, but not the main reason of the war.

[chonsigirl]

That is always the debatable aspect of the Civil War. For years you were taught in school that it was to end slavery, not about the right of states to leave the Union. It also makes a difference if you are looking at the Civil War through a pro-Union or pro-Confederate viewpoint.

[spot]

I think one gets a clearer picture looking at what was said at the time, especially in the private diaries and letters of those concerned. The result's less clouded by interpretative preference on the part of subsequent authors.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by chonsigirl

That is always the debatable aspect of the Civil War. For years you were taught in school that it was to end slavery, not about the right of states to leave the Union. It also makes a difference if you are looking at the Civil War through a pro-Union or pro-Confederate viewpoint.

I'm trying to look at it from a pro-Constitution viewpoint. I'm quickly coming to the opinion that our Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper rolled up and put in a corner - never read, but sometimes mentioned in passing by legislators. The foundation of our society is being ignored, and that society is morphing out of all recognition as a result. I believe that morphing started with our Civil War, accellerated under various administrations (primarily FDR's) and continues today.

I'm thinking it may be past time to mourn our constitution and the society it represented.

Originally Posted by Accountable

I'm trying to look at it from a pro-Constitution viewpoint. I'm quickly coming to the opinion that our Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper rolled up and put in a corner - never read, but sometimes mentioned in passing by legislators. The foundation of our society is being ignored, and that society is morphing out of all recognition as a result. I believe that morphing started with our Civil War, accellerated under various administrations (primarily FDR's) and continues today.

I'm thinking it may be past time to mourn our constitution and the society it represented.

Wait a minute though, we've been over the end does not justify the means and I think it's obvious Lincoln was acting to preserve the union, maybe it is that by not allowing the south to leave the union, he was preserving what he thought was a greater command in our constitution by securing more equal rights for all men, slave and free. Maybe Lincoln was acting off of the constitution? Maybe he felt there was a conflict between those two things and he erred on the side that was more core to the constitutional?

Originally Posted by spot

I think one gets a clearer picture looking at what was said at the time, especially in the private diaries and letters of those concerned. The result's less clouded by interpretative preference on the part of subsequent authors.

I agree with that generally, but I also write things in my journal that I feel that day, then don’t feel the same way and will write something different the next day, or a month later, or even a year later.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by Hoss

Wait a minute though, we've been over the end does not justify the means and I think it's obvious Lincoln was acting to preserve the union, maybe it is that by not allowing the south to leave the union, he was preserving what he thought was a greater command in our constitution by securing more equal rights for all men, slave and free. Maybe Lincoln was acting off of the constitution? Maybe he felt there was a conflict between those two things and he erred on the side that was more core to the constitutional?

But the fighting started first. The emancipation came later, and only for those who agreed to fight against the South. I might agree with you if the southern states had seceded because of the emacipation proclamation. Also, Lincoln violated the Constitution in other ways, such as supending habeas corpus, but I'd need a snorkel to go in any deeper than that, and have to cook breakfast for my beloved right now.

Originally Posted by Accountable

But the fighting started first. The emancipation came later, and only for those who agreed to fight against the South. I might agree with you if the southern states had seceded because of the emacipation proclamation. Also, Lincoln violated the Constitution in other ways, such as supending habeas corpus, but I'd need a snorkel to go in any deeper than that, and have to cook breakfast for my beloved right now.

LOL! I have obligations this morning too, I'll check back later!

Have a great morning with your family!