Bachmann Ends Campaign

[GhostWriter16]

You can't leave discrimination to the states. We had a whole war about that & everything.

That just doesn't follow history very well, sorry.

First of all, the war had absolutely nada to do with the immorality of slavery until 1863. Before that, it was more of a political issue for most of the North. If slavery was allowed to go west, cotton planting would go west, and people living there would vote Dixiecrats into office. All bad things for the north.

Note: I'm not trying to give slavery the slightest justification by saying that. Slavery needed to die, and the Civil War accomplished that, it wasn't the intended goal. Kinda like how the atomic bomb was meant to make Japan surrender but it also did kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Second of all, very few Northerners were anti-discrimination. Even Lincoln said in most clear terms that the white race was superior. Now, by believing blacks had any political rights at all, Lincoln was ahead of his time. But he wasn't really fighting a war against discrimination.

Third of all, the war didn't even really have to do with any of that. The South left the union because of the reasons explained in my first paragraph (Not to mention the tariff and the cultural differences) and the Union, under Lincoln's leadership, declared war on that.

Fourth of all, even if the war were a moral crusade by the North against the immoral treatment of black people in the South (It wasn't) that still has nothing to do with the demerits of gay discrimination (I don't believe in gay discrimination, at least in terms of how I define it, but that's besides the point.)

And finally, not allowing a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman at least theoretically has to do with the definition of marriage, not the denial of rights.

Yet leaving gay marriage to the states is exactly the current policy so that war seems to not have resolved the issue.

It wasn't intended too. It wasn't really intended to solve the slavery issue either, but at least that actually happened

These things take time....

Eventually it will be a federal policy the states will be forced to abide by.

That will be the day our country loses all sanity. I hope the more conservative states aren't in this country by then

 

[Mango Elephant]

Can we not turn this into a Civil War discussion? Good lord.

When it comes to Bachman, she's not worth a lick. When it comes to brains she got the short end of the stick. She shouldn't be blamed for that, I'm sure, but she obviously isn't fit to be the president (LOL).

 

[Ajidica]

First of all, the war had absolutely nada to do with the immorality of slavery until 1863.

Not quite. Politicaly, you are partialy correct. For Lincoln and many other northern politicians slavery was a decidedly economic and legal issue. However, anti-slavery religious revivalism was becoming a much larger force. Lincoln didn't try and turn the cassus belli into the morality of slavery because he was looking for things to do.

Second of all, very few Northerners were anti-discrimination. Even Lincoln said in most clear terms that the white race was superior. Now, by believing blacks had any political rights at all, Lincoln was ahead of his time. But he wasn't really fighting a war against discrimination.

You know, I would have thought that a person as religious as you would want to emphasize the mass religious revivalism that was an important anti-slavery force that was becoming increasingly important.

Third of all, the war didn't even really have to do with any of that. The South left the union because of the reasons explained in my first paragraph (Not to mention the tariff and the cultural differences) and the Union, under Lincoln's leadership, declared war on that.

Misleading statement is misleading. Various southern states split away, but the federal property, notably the armories and forts, still were federal property, not state property. When South Carolina decided to declare war on the United States of America by shelling Ft. Sumter because they viewed it an unsightly blemish in their great white society, they declared war as the agressor. Not the United States of America which is what you statement seemed to be suggesting.

And finally, not allowing a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman at least theoretically has to do with the definition of marriage, not the denial of rights.

Based on what Jesus says, I can marry a kitchen condiment. I'm looking forward to seeing you complain about how the federal government is denying my ability to have a bible-based marriage. (And the arguments about whether marrying allspice constitutes polygamy.)

Can we not turn this into a Civil War discussion? Good lord.

Why not? I'm bored and looking to kill some time while the Daily Show ads are running.

 

[Old Hippy]

And finally, not allowing a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman at least theoretically has to do with the definition of marriage, not the denial of rights.

yeah ... right ... so theoretically they can... except for the grammar police

 

[GhostWriter16]

Not quite. Politicaly, you are partialy correct. For Lincoln and many other northern politicians slavery was a decidedly economic and legal issue. However, anti-slavery religious revivalism was becoming a much larger force. Lincoln didn't try and turn the cassus belli into the morality of slavery because he was looking for things to do.

That's true, but Lincoln's reasoning for passing the emancipation proclamation was, according to my interpretation of history, in hopes that the South would surrender before it took effect.

You know, I would have thought that a person as religious as you would want to emphasize the mass religious revivalism that was an important anti-slavery force that was becoming increasingly important.

That's true, I did misspeak a bit. Yes, a lot of people hated the institution of slavery and really wanted it done away with, solely because of how it affeted the slaves. That said, Lincoln and the Northern government did not hold this view, at any time during the war, nor did Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson. The entire thing was political.

Misleading statement is misleading. Various southern states split away, but the federal property, notably the armories and forts, still were federal property, not state property. When South Carolina decided to declare war on the United States of America by shelling Ft. Sumter because they viewed it an unsightly blemish in their great white society, they declared war as the agressor. Not the United States of America which is what you statement seemed to be suggesting.

That doesn't really make sense either. Ft. Sumter became South Carolina property when SC broke off. SC ordered the Union to leave, and they didn't. It would be like if I let you pitch a tent in my backyard. You'd be justified to set up the tent, but if I told you to pack up and go home, you wouldn't have a choice. What if you refused to leave? Would I be unjustified to use force to make you leave?

If the South was anything, it wasn't stupid. They were outgunned to such an extent that to WANT war would be suicidal. They didn't. They wanted independence.

Based on what Jesus says, I can marry a kitchen condiment. I'm looking forward to seeing you complain about how the federal government is denying my ability to have a bible-based marriage. (And the arguments about whether marrying allspice constitutes polygamy

Ignoring the fact thaat I really didn't use the Bible as an argument (Traditional principles, but not the Bible directly) what does Jesus say that makes you think that?

EDIT: I think we should move this to a new thread.

 

[Ajidica]

That's true, but Lincoln's reasoning for passing the emancipation proclamation was, according to my interpretation of history, in hopes that the South would surrender before it took effect.

Yeah no. Remember, there were a few slave-holding states states that did not seceed from the Union. The Civil War was increasingly becoming about slavery, and Lincoln and his generals really didin't need a few more states seceeding. As such, the Emanicpation Proclamation in many ways was designed to appease those states and throw a bone to the traitors. The proclamation outlawed slavery in states out of alignment. If a trator state would go come back to the United States, it could possibly keep the slaves. Forcing fear into the heart of traitors was not the original intent of the proclamation, even if your personal interpretation of history may see it as such.

That's true, I did misspeak a bit. Yes, a lot of people hated the institution of slavery and really wanted it done away with, solely because of how it affeted the slaves. That said, Lincoln and the Northern government did not hold this view, at any time during the war, nor did Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson. The entire thing was political.

You cannot say that the moral movement against slavery was large and increasingly influential, while at the same time say the civil wars continuation was entirely political. The radical republicans didn't spring out of a hole in the ground after the Civil War was over after all.

That doesn't really make sense either. Ft. Sumter became South Carolina property when SC broke off.

I wasn't aware you had so much in common with Nasser and the Suez Canal, or Mossadeq and Anglo-Iranian Oil.

SC ordered the Union to leave, and they didn't. It would be like if I let you pitch a tent in my backyard. You'd be justified to set up the tent, but if I told you to pack up and go home, you wouldn't have a choice. What if you refused to leave? Would I be unjustified to use force to make you leave?

It is more like you sell me the land then later you have a hissy fit and try to claim it. I show you the property deed and tell you to sod off. After that you take a page from the Little Red Book.

If the South was anything, it wasn't stupid.

No, they were. Only a fool would think that declaring war on the people who had just let you seceed peacefully and were a massive industrial power with a country that was scarcely more developed the Tsarist Russia would be a good idea.

They were outgunned to such an extent that to WANT war would be suicidal. They didn't. They wanted independence.

They had their independence, but they didn't get everything they had on their Traitor Christmas List, so they decided to throw a hissy fit.

Ignoring the fact thaat I really didn't use the Bible as an argument (Traditional principles, but not the Bible directly) what does Jesus say that makes you think that?

Marriage does not end upon death.

 

[Old Hippy]

That's true, I did misspeak a bit. Yes, a lot of people hated the institution of slavery and really wanted it done away with, solely because of how it affeted the slaves. That said, Lincoln and the Northern government did not hold this view, at any time during the war, nor did Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson. The entire thing was political.

.

well of course it was political... whats wrong with that

but Lincoln was prominent pre civl war on this issue...
like his Speech at Peoria, Illinois. It was part of a seven hour election debate that day

Spoiler :

In 1794 they prohibited an outgoing slave-trade—that is, the taking of slaves from the United States to sell. In 1798 they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa into the Mississippi Territory, this Territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was ten years before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the Constitution. In 1800 they prohibited American citizens from trading in slaves between foreign countries, as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil. In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two slave-State laws, in restraint of the internal slave-trade. In 1807, in apparent hot haste,

-245-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they passed the law, nearly a year in advance,—to take effect the first day of 1808, the very first day the Constitution would permit,—prohibiting the African slave-trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties. In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the slave-trade piracy, and annexed to it the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the General Government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation, by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within their limits. Thus we see that the plain, unmistakable spirit of that age toward slavery was hostility to the principle and toleration only by necessity.

But now it is to be transformed into a "sacred right." Nebraska brings it forth, places it on the highroad to extension and perpetuity, and with a pat on its back says to it, "Go, and God speed you." Henceforth it is to be the chief jewel of the nation—the very figurehead of the ship of state. Little by little, but steadily as man's march to the grave, we have been giving up the old for the new faith. Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a "sacred right of self-government." These principles cannot

yes... it was political ... he spoke for 3 hours... and he was not just passionate about the issue, he was legally linking it back to the very formation of the US of A

edit# its just strange to me how some one can say" but it was a poltical decision" and that somehow makes the argument moot... in the middle of a political debate edit#

 

[GamezRule]

When God made Michelle Bachmann he poured her brains in with a teaspoon and somebody yanking on his arm!

 

[Tani Coyote]

Good. One less nutcase in the GOP.

Unfortunately I doubt Romney will be able to pull through, so Obama's likely to win.

Short of a massive economic implosion, of course. Now that the economy's improving again and the Iraq War is over(at least seemingly), I'd say he's gonna start having a lot more going for him.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Yay, ultra-conservatives can now congeal around fewer candidates! Not-Mitt for the win!

 

[GoodGame]

I didn't think she was around for anything other than to make the GOP look good to the teaparty voters. I wouldn't be surprised if she still gets some kind of cabinet-related position if the GOP wins though.

 

[NickyJ]

Mitt will never give that wacko any position.

 

[Traitorfish]

Even if she wasn't a lunatic, there'd be no reason to give her any sort of position. She's an ideologue with an audience, nothing more; she has no real political experience. She couldn't even get elected to a local school board in 1999, ferchrissake, nobody's going to trust her to handle the affairs of three hundred million people.

 

[Incodcito]

You can't leave discrimination to the states. We had a whole war about that & everything.

So all or nothing?

I'll take the middle ground and wait for the zeitgeist to change enough for the Supreme Court to make the right decision... it will take time, but hey, so did Roe v Wade.