Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire John Wilkes Booth

What if Lincoln would have lived?

He’d be dead by now

Lincoln was a lifelong politician who showed no scruples in using any political weapon he had.

So here is what I think, I think he would have been just as bad if not worse than the Radical Republicans were at the first sign of opposition from Southern states. But in any case he would have been gone after 1868 and some of the worst excesses in Reconstruction happened after that date anyway. Grant probably still would have been elected his successor and Grant showed himself to be a weak and easily distracted executive who let the crazies run the show.

I understand the conflict over new states coming as slave or free in regard to additional senators favorable to the South. I don't have a good grasp of "Bloody Kansas" at all. There was a lot of killing and maneuvering by both sides. Seems like yeoman whites without slaves wanted land the big planters would grab up if the territory became a slave state. It was an economic struggle between rich and poor that nothing to do per se with the outmoded agricultural methods. Nobody ever cared about African cotton pickers. Slavery was dying out with all the mechanization. How the freed slaves would have assimilated under a peaceful transition is debatable.Their descendants are not doing so well. Nor are the uneducated whites "freed" from the workforce by off shoring to China and favored illegal immigration.

Yes, it was universally illegal in the territories because the Northwest Ordinance made it so. The Missouri Compromise admitted one free and one slave state to the Union and banned slavery in the Louisiana Purchase territories. It was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska act and declared unconstitutional in Dred Scott---a decision that, in its justification of moral and legal positivism, has much in common with the justification of the moral and legal positivism that is the philosophic foundation of the homosexual rights movement. The Republican Party of 1856, who understood the Constitution and Declaration in the same manner as the Founders were not radical; they were sober, just as were the Founders. The radicals were the Democrats who sought to transmute slavery from its original understanding by the Founders as a "necessary evil" into a "positive moral good". Recall that the intellectual father of this transmutation was John Calhoun who called the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence "self-evident lies". So who is the radical here?? There is a reason why, when the South seceded they adopted their own Constitution (with explicit protections and approval of slavery) rather than simply adopt the Constitution of 1787; they couldn't because they knew their cause was anti-thetical to the original Constitution as understood by the Founders. In attempting to justify the ownership of other human beings (who have a free will) as if they were chattel (property without a will of any kind) in a nation founded on the proposition that every man has a God-given right to freedom, it was the Democrats who were the radicals, just as they are the radicals today. Did you ever stop to examine the affinity between moral and legal positivism that justifies slavery and the self-same positivism that justifies homosexuality? The parallels are striking. Dinesh D'souza has a number of excellent videos demonstrating why the Democrat Party of today is the same Democrat Party of the ante-bellum and post-bellum south. At its core, the Democrat Part of today embraces legal and moral positivism with the same fervor of the Democrat Party of 1856.

Was slavery legal in England after the US?

Slave trading?

Or slavery?

The Northwest Ordinance was adopted before the Constitution was ratified and only applied the states in the Old Northwest Territories Territory. It did not apply to all territories and in fact, an act seeking to outlaw slavery in all western territories after the year 1800 had failed to pass in 1784.

The Missouri Compromise only prohibited slavery in the territories north of the 36* 30 parallel.

Slavery was banned in England in 1807. It was banned in the empire in 1833. Slaves were not freed but converted to indentured servants who had terms of service.

Look up John Newton

Wonder what would’ve happened if McClellan had won the election

The truth is that the Confederacy while wrong about slavery was right in almost every other way regarding the relation between free peoples and government. Their idea of government was the closest to that of the Founders.

Whereas, the Yankees, while right about slavery were wrong on practically every other issue and their vision of a strong centralized state with the authority and power to enforce its moral edicts is what is wrong with our country today.

Setting aside slavery and idea of empire, there is not one person on this board who wouldn’t rather live under a government following the ideas espoused by the Confederacy than those we live under today.

Wrong in every respect as I will show later...

Does that mean a state gets to legalize incest? How about pederasty? Sutee? Cannibalism? How about plunging scissors into the back of the skull of an infant as she is traveling down the birth canal? On your logic the answer must be "yes". But the Declaration teaches us that only "just laws" can be derived from the consent of the governed. Consent as such cannot justify anything intrinsically immoral. Your statement above is a crystal clear expression of the legal and moral positivism that undergirds everything you wish for just as it undergirds the entirety of the radical Democrat party of today---the same radical democrat party that once claimed human beings are actually chairs and dogs and oxen, just as they now claim a man is a woman and vise versa.

From whence do you get your morality?

Do you get to decide that currently legal things are immoral shouod be prohibited? What about things that were moral and now aren’t?

WTF

You are the one who says that "might makes right" (that states get to do what they want). Tell us what limitations there are, if any?

No, I’m the one saying go by the Constitution. What did the Constitution say about slavery? What did it say about slaves taken to non-slave states?

Its way to understand. The victors write the history, which then gets pounded into the psyche of elementary school kids. Most of those kids never develop the ability to think for themselves, or question the official dogma.

And it doesn't just apply to history.

Had to look up sutee.





P