posted on December 18, 2000 12:02:00 PM new
It was inevitable, James, and it may well have beeen a goal of Lincoln's to free slaves. But he couldn't have publically said so much with any real hope of being elected. Many of his private writings do detail his belief that no principal of freedom for all could enslave anyone, but the federal law as it stood allowed that, state by state. You're right in saying that the civil war was begun in order to preserve state's soveriegnty by the southern states, if that's what you said.
posted on December 18, 2000 12:03:57 PM new
james- thanks for your support but it is falling on deaf ears. the same lack of facts that has been referred to is evident here. however,we are getting off the subject. networker-you addressed much, if not all, of your last post to me. in fact, if you read my post carefully you would see that i am not in disagreement with you. neither am i in full agreement with you as many of the constitutional references are not in my area of expertise. your statement regarding lack of argument support with facts is at issue. you seem to offer as fact many statements of opinion and quasi quotes without sources. you did not answer my previous questions regarding the credentials that allow you to make such definitive statements about the many subjects you address. the "IMHO" you used in your last post was very refreshing, particularly the "H". signed, a true American
posted on December 18, 2000 12:06:36 PM new
I'll give you a jumpstart, coda,
from a letter to Horace Greeley in 1859:
"The democracy of to-day hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another man's right of property.Republicans, on the contrary, are for both the man and the dollar; but in cases of conflict, the man before the dollar.
I remember once being much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men engage in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a long, and rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out of his own coat, and into that of the other. If the two leading parties of this day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and Adams, they have perfomed the same feat as the two drunken men.
But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation.
One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society.
And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they
apply only to "superior races."
These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect--the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard--the miners, and sappers--of returning despotism.
We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.
This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it".
posted on December 18, 2000 12:13:02 PM new
From link below:
Abraham Lincoln is often referred to as "The Great Emancipator" and yet, he did not publicly call for emancipation throughout his entire life. Lincoln began his public career by claiming that he was "antislavery" -- against slavery's expansion but not calling for immediate emancipation. However, the man who began as "antislavery" eventually issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves in those states that were in rebellion. He vigorously supported the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery throughout the United States, and, in the last speech of his life, he recommended extending the vote to African Americans.
This brief study of Lincoln's writings on slavery contains examples of Lincoln's views on slavery. It also shows one of his greatest strengths: his ability to change as it relates to his public stance on slavery.
posted on December 18, 2000 12:13:42 PM new
I am, by no means, a civil war scholar (I can't remember who it is that is) but I do recall reading that the issue of slavery was of much more concern to the foreign powers of the day than it was to the Confederacy or the United States.
Both sides in the conflict were at all times worried about foreign intervention that could have, at the time, affected the outcome of the war. It was important for Northern politicians to emphasize their position on slavery in order to preclude the pro-Southern intervention of certain European nations.
I don't really understand all of the social dynamics of the day and it may have indeed been all about slavery. I believe, however, the issue remains unresolved or, at least, still strongly debated among those who do study the matter.
posted on December 18, 2000 12:22:11 PM new
Here's a link to the actual document which details the reasons for South Carolina's secession from the union:
It's representative of other state's similar declarations, and is predominently focused on the perception that the union had usurped state's rights to the point of negating the Declaration of Independence. Slavery is an element, but the issues went more to the extent of power of the United States as a government of the independent states. The secessionist states wanted to be allowed to plot their courses as though they were separate nations.
posted on December 18, 2000 12:57:19 PM new
Hello MrPotatoHead,
Thank you for that link. I think those excerpts well illustrate Lincoln's longstanding moral objections to slavery and his deference to preserving the Union (over other beliefs or principles he held).
Krs,
I began to read the link you posted. Would you not agree that South Carolina, having stated that the failure of other States to return fugitive slaves as the first and foremost example of other States failure to abide by the Constitution, was in effect highlighting slavery as the primary reason for seceeding?
posted on December 18, 2000 12:58:24 PM new
networker - I am sorry you need to be this way - the very start of the thread was just an invitation to come argue. Some people do not look at conflict as recreation. Obviously you thrive on it. There are reasonable gentle people who do not want to constantly look for something to be upset about. It is not a flaw.
They are not just spineless people. They actually have the capacity to see other viewpoints without feeling they have surrendered.
I have worked with people who if things are calm and peaceful are not happy until they provoke someone into being upset. It wears on you.
Perhaps you are from an enviroment where it was normal to be in conflict and you are uncomfortable if there is not constant trouble. I have seen families like that where there is never peace. It is not normal or healthy to crave conflict as a substitute for affection and always need an enemy to attack
to feel secure. It is possible to discuss things and have an interchange of ideas without pickings sides and drawing battle lines as a start. Do you have anyone who you allow to be your friend without completely surrendering to you in every detail of the many opinions you hold? I can't imaigine any relationship being acceptable to you without complete domination. After seeing so many of your posts I feel sorry for you that there is never any joy unless someone else is diminished. Perhaps this is addressing the person rather than the issue but I have come to feel the personality has become the issue - that you would take any side just to have someone to argue with.
posted on December 18, 2000 01:10:04 PM newIt is not normal or healthy to crave conflict as a substitute for affection and always need an enemy to attack to feel secure.
posted on December 18, 2000 01:14:55 PM newjamesoblivion - Before that thread was closed I went into that matter about the Hebrew alaphabet. And the closest translation to our western European roamnce languages was accepted as jehovah what made Guttenberg pick that one is beyond me. I furthered the same discussion that a lot hebrew congregations use jehovah to have a word to a associate due to the large number of extra jewish marriages and converted jews. I even reinforced it with passages from our King James Version that use the name. I even referenced specifically the use of the name in FIRST FIVE of the bible because the first five form the Torah a.k.a. Law under Moses.
Really not trying to get back to that religious discussion because unlike the Constitution which has a clearly identified body which serves as the final interpretation of it. Religions body that has final interpretation hasn't decided to make that grand reappearance as of yet.
code, surely you aren't using a largely stretched definition of encroach to make a point are you? It appears you have because I think clearly beyond all words of clarity showed you how we all can have our freedom if apply responsibility and respect to one another. Sorry but there is no moral right or wrong.
I'll say again perhaps you missed this in the first post.
You have a right to burn the flag, I have a right to throw water on the fire. Surely you didn't miss the message or have you chosen to overlook it? Let me break it down kindergarten style for you.
By setting fire to the flag you have expressed your right of expression and protest. By letting you set the flag on fire, I have respected your right and then exercised mine to put out the fire. You had your say in buring it, I had my say in extingushing the flame. Now if I had of stopped of you from setting the fire in the first place, I would have intruded on your right of expression.
Now the gun example, what's so hard to grasp that you have a right to own a gun and I have a right to protest about your having a gun. My protesting hasn't stopped you owning the gun has it. Now if I went and took your gun as part of my protest I would have over stepped the bounds and denied you your right to own it. By the same if you use the gun to shoot me solely because I am protesting your owning it. You have denied me my right of protest. See how that works no great moral issues need resolving. Just we agree that your rights are yours and my rights are mine we both have to exert them in a manner that we both have our rights.
In both examples above we both have our cake and eat it too. Now the moral stuff is what gives rise to conflict when one person takes the position that his exertion of his rights is morally above anothers. Which is why those silly morals tend to incite people past reason to see that we all have to exert our rights, but in exerting them we also have to respect the rights of others. Which just gave me total clarity on why people needed so much clarity to get We The People through their thick skulls.
Now on that slave issue, where was it ever written that you had such a right. And under the language of that great document the Constitution of The United States. That right wasn't given to you in language. But when language was specifically added to forbid it you don't find it strange that it had to be reinforced several times to clarify every single aspect of freedom.
And don't you also find it strange that although the issue of States Rights what ever rights were or were not at issue was resolved in a war but the fundamental question of "Can A State Leave The Union", has never had to be clarified under the Law. But We The People growing to mean all the people has had to be clarified on numerous occasions. I find it funny as hell myself.
By the way if everyone took my definition of American half of our problems would be resolved. But as the direction of this thread has indicated. Some people want to think that their rights take priority because of some moral direction or sense. When it is totally possible for a responsible citizenship to accept that exertion of rights requires respect for anothers rights. I still beleive in my view and opinion of the subject. It guides me because given some of the history we have touched upon and the need for so much clarity of something so simple. Its the only thing that keeps my faith in America as an institution and a people.
Why do you think no one else has been able to copy our formula. Because it requires a responsible citizenship and responsible leadership. It requires the ability to equally give and receive respect. It requires people that can accept differences all while trying to work with and around those differences. It has never failed because "We The People" is more than words on paper. It is a creed that has been expanded and clarified to the point that "We The People" intend to make sure that we keep the Union as perfect as humanly possible. We establish justice to ensure domestic tranquiltity. We provide for our common Defense and promote the general welfare so that we secure the blessing of liberty.
Wow last time I try to get philisophical. Too many people think their citizenship is being questioned.
No. I think there was a greater concern over the growing imposition of federal law upon state's rights, and that slavery was but one of the examples of such imposition given.
I doubt that anyone would have gone to war over a few, or few hundred unreturned slaves. Rather, as it says, the belief was widely held that the union was not what was fought for in the Revolution. The regulatory restrictions to free trade were the knock down issues and slavery was part of those only.
The southern states were saying "It's about the economy, stupid".
posted on December 18, 2000 01:32:43 PM new
Networker,
This is totally unrelated, so let's not get into it here (well, I will, but just this last time). First, the premise, and then the explanation. Number one, the Holy Bible is not Jewish, the Torah, or Hebrew Bible is. The KJV, Guttenberg, Septuagint, or any other are as authoritative within Judaism as the I Ching, for a variety of reasons.
As for the pronounciation, as I mentioned, Hebrew was a purely consonental written language (as were all ancient Semitic languages). In the 9th-10th Centuries, a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes devised a vowel system, not by adding letters, but by ornamenting the Hebrew consonants with dots and dashes (they are called "nekudot" ). Until that point, the correct pronounciation of the Torah had to literally be memorized (as an example why this was so, the phrase in English, "I wll str", which contains no vowels, could conceivable be read as "I will stare" or "I will steer". The meanings are totally different. Of course context helps, but you could probably think of an example where both possibilities could fit into context, with only one being correct).
Anyway, since that time, the YHVH word has been ornamented with the vowel dots, that are used in another Hebrew word, ADNY, which is definitely pronounced "Adonai" and means, "my Lord". The reason this was done is because YHVH is read as "Adonai", even though YHVH is written. So, if one were to read a Hebrew prayerbook or printed Bible, one would come across the word "Yahovai", which is really YHVH, and not "Yahovai" at all. Apparently, some time in the 16th Century a Christian Bible was printed which used the Anglicised (or Latinized) form of "Yahovai" and hence "Jehova" was born.
It's not so terrible to be mistaken sometimes.
Sorry to those to whom the off-topicness bothers. My apolgies.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Dec 18, 2000 01:34 PM ]
posted on December 18, 2000 01:45:20 PM new
gravid - Sorry you feel that way. But I guess in your skip reading that you haven't noticed that I haven't directly or indirectly either attacked anyone's view. I humbly apologize if you or anyone else for that matter failed to see the gist of the thread.
In fact we haven't even argued here in the sense of how arguements on Auction Watch can go. Its a philosophical question that had a fundamental objective of asking people to stop and think what makes a Country composed entirely of everything this planet has to offer so special. We don't have a common national orgin like say France or Germany. Heck technically we don't have a common language. We don't have a national cuisine and unless you do a lot of gathering of people you could never take a picture of an American to show friends in another land.
It was posed with the objective of hopefully reminding people that the only thing that holds us together is our common belief in the basic principles of freedom under the Constitution. Again I apologize if you and others managed to miss it. I would have thought the constant shift to the Constitution would have served as a hint to the objective of the thread. But somewhere between morals which IMHO Americans don't have a defined standard of. The principles of the Civil War and few other twists along the way. I guess it got lost. But since I never attacked a single view expressed I think you owe me an apology. But your post creates the impression in my mind that even with this much clarity into the gist of the post you won't feel you owe one.
posted on December 18, 2000 01:46:26 PM new
A note to jamesoblivion.
The reason it was pronounced Adonai was that it was considered wrong to speak aloud the name of God. I at one time had a Hebrew / English transliteration bible that had an asterick BEFORE God's name on the English
section and in the footnote it would say
"The ineffable name of God." The idea being the asterick was before the word to alert you to not speak it aloud.
The institution of slavery was a major factor of the economy in the Southern States.
Networker67,
I think I made it clear that I didn't see any encroachment on either of those rights under your original scenario.
However, if I were to burn an American flag and you were to throw a bucket of water on it, I think you would definitely be encroaching on my right to dispose of my property (the flag) in any legal manner I chose.
The mistake in your later scenario is to assume that your right to free speech takes precedence over my right to dispose of my property as I choose. Your right to free speech does not extend to my property.
If you want to continue along this line of discussion I would urge you once again to find a better example in order to illustrate your answer to my question about how to proceed when two rights are in direct conflict.
Incidentally, there are two proper methods for disposing of a flag. One is to bury it. The other is to burn it.
If you decide to extinguish the fire you are arbitrarily assuming that the flag is not my property and that I am burning it as an act of free speech rather than simply disposing of it in a prescribed manner.
posted on December 18, 2000 02:09:39 PM new
I could be wrong, but I took Networker's flag burning example to be metaphorical. The same right that guarantees that I can say anti-American things, give you the right to denounce me as an evil communist pinko.
posted on December 18, 2000 02:41:56 PM new
Hello James,
Metaphorical or not, it does not serve to illustrate a situation where the exercise of one right encroaches on another right or how a conflict between two rights is resolved.
That is the question I posed to Networker and am still hoping to get an answer to.
My own example of the right to own slaves in the Southern States prior to the abolition of slavery as opposed to the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as expounded in the Constitution apparently is not to Networker's liking.
I don't know if Networker believes that slavery wasn't a right prior to its abolition or if he agrees that it was a right reserved unto the States by virtue of the Bill of Rights and that the Civil War was fought (in great part) to determine which right took precedence (States rights as expressed in property rights or individual rights as expressed in "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness).
If he can construct a better example of the conflict between rights then he is invited to post it.
_____________________________________________
Networker,
"Now on that slave issue, where was it ever written that you had such a right. And under the language of that great document the Constitution of The United States. That right wasn't given to you in language."
If you are not trying to depict me as a proponent of slavery then I would ask that you clarify your wording to say so.
If you are trying to depict me as a proponent of slavery then I will ask that a moderator step in and remind you that we are to discuss the topic and not personalities.
And, in terms of arguing that slavery was indeed a right prior to its abolition I would refer you to that Article of the Bill of Rights that states that in the absence of a right not specifically outlined in the Constitution that right reverts to the various States. I think it is Article X. So, my interpretation of the Constitution as it stood prior to the abolition of slavery is that each State had the right to decide if slavery was to be allowed.
posted on December 18, 2000 03:16:40 PM new
Well, what does seem obvious from all of this discussion is that one of the things that does define an American (of the United Statsian variety) is a desire to go on at great length about "rights".
It makes me wonder about our perception of rights and why we feel entitled to them.
Did they exist prior to the US Consitution, the Magna Carta, or even the code of Hammurabi?
Are they intrinsic to humanity or a contrivance?
What right do we have to have rights?
I will posit that the answers are: probably, a contrivance, and none.
I further state that what makes us American is our willingness to accept that the rights we've chosen to bestow upon ourselves are those which are of fundamental importance.
Which leads me to conclude that arrogance and self-righteousness are characteristics of being an American.
A conclusion certainly reinforced by today's discussion.
- to respell righteousness which still doesn't look like it's spelled right.
posted on December 18, 2000 04:34:17 PM new
sorry moderators, but: networker- correct me if i am quoting you wrongly: 1. "if everyone took my definition of American half our problems would be resolved." 2. "let me break it down kindergarten style for you." 3. .. "(people have) thick skulls.." 4. Gravid "owes (you) an apology"- i think this thread should be locked due to an inflated ego, excessive brow-beating, blatantly demeaning statements, world class pomposity, and a seeming lack of any credentials to back up such self-righteous opinions(disguised as fact) including the audacity regarding others' religions. years ago i heard the expression "a little knowledge is dangerous". this is living proof.
posted on December 18, 2000 04:54:18 PM new
kenny- now that i am sitting it all looks different to me from down here. i now see that networker is an AW plant put here just to get the juices flowing. sort of like shill chatting. NEVERMIND
[ edited by stusi on Dec 18, 2000 04:56 PM ]
posted on December 18, 2000 05:07:03 PM new
Yes, shill posting is better, but not placed by AW. You'll see people refer to such things as trolling sometimes.
posted on December 18, 2000 10:03:47 PM new
code - If you can't see it. Its because you don't want to see it. And if the flag burning wasn't clear enough. It is apparent to me the gun argument was because you didn't invent a counter to it. And since they said the exact same thing. Using entirely different freedoms. You got the meaning. And if you didn't well nothing said by me will change that. I might knock down brick walls but I will never be guilty of wasting my time talking to one.
Stusi - Settle down lad it isn't that serious. Why risk moderation over a simple discussion, I would hope we are all adults here. Besides I gave you references to the United States Constitution, you are aware that you don't need a law degree to read it aren't you. And my credentials are not needed for a discussion such as this.
jamesoblivion - Code got the gist, he just has a hard time accepting that in order to exert his freedom in a responsible manner he must respect others freedoms. Instead he wants to take the position his freedoms are always greater because of some moral sense. But the consolation prize for him is a lot of people feel that way.
Which is why there is always so much conflict in America. Everybody wants freedom no one wants to respect anothers freedom. Look at this thread and read again what I think makes us American.
An American is one who holds true and dear to the basic belief that the principles and freedoms of The United States Constitution applies to them and everyone else responsible enough to accept. That with great freedoms the citizenship must exert great responsibility in exercising and respecting those freedoms they hold for themselves. Because an American accepts that exerting some of his freedoms, might encroach on the freedoms of another.
Strange how code in all of that managed to harp on the word encroach. Then managed to stretch the meaning of the word encroach.
So let's back track and define encroach:
encroach - 1. to advance beyond proper limits; make gradual inroads 2. to tresspass upon the property, domain or rights of another, esp stealthily or by gradual advances.
See james he gets it, he just hates the concept that to enjoy freedom he must exert responsibility and show respect for others freedoms while enjoying his. What I find hilarious is a group of 8th graders get the concept but adults stuck on having freedoms can't fanthom that those same freedoms require a degree of responsibility in exerting them. But to appease insanity here's my father's rewrite.
"An American is one who holds true and dear that the freedoms of the Constitution applies to them as well as all other Americans as defined by the Constitution".
We debated that rewrite extensively two weeks ago over chess. I said you get the same radical resistance either way. Because some people seem to think that because of some moral reason their freedom is more important than yours. His reply then that person could never be a true American.
