Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: What Trump means when saying the civil war issues might have been negotiated

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 07 Jan 24 10:56 AM | 31 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 51860 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 51859 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

But if they had abandoned slavery, I don't see how Lincoln would have objected if they had voted to secede. The moral justification for the civil war would no longer be available. Secession from the United States would have been similar to our Brexit.

I know they didn't vote to secede, by the way. They seceded, then the people voted for their new government. Talking grand principles here.

And slavery was, of course, the main cause of dissension. Without it, the South would not have had its main reason for secession.

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
What Trump means when saying the civil war issues might have been negotiated
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Sun, 07 Jan 24 5:47 AM 		Msg. 51859 of 54959

He means what he always means.

The South would have been allowed to secede. And slavery would have been permitted to continue there.

Let's not pretend it's anything else.

He said the same about Ukraine. Trump would negotiate in a way that allows Russia to hold onto the part of Ukraine it occupies.

For myself, I think the anti-slavery element of the US civil war was morally just, and from a constitutional perspective, any state ought to be permitted to secede if it votes to do so. So you have a contrast of types of principle in play.

In my view, Lincoln could not allow the South to secede given its continued use of slaves (even if that wasn't his argument).

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next