Why do people foolishly insist that US/CS reunion is possible?

[robertp6165]

Depends on thier willingness to abide by any other checks and balances in existance.

To what do you refer? The Supreme Court? You do realize, of course, that if a party takes control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, they can change the composition of the Supreme Court by increasing the number of Justices? FDR tried that in the 1930s, and fortunately for the country, he did not have a majority in Congress which would go along with him.

More to the point this analogy is faulty. You could argue that efforts to end abortion by main force is cause for succession/rebellion and sound sensable.

However the idea that any states could or would break off because some Evangelical Christian gets elected to office is contemptuous at best, and this is from a staunch Abortion Rights Advocate.

HTG

Okay, so let's make the analogy more exact. Try this scenario on for size.

The Evangelical Christian Morality Party is formed, opposing abortion. They steadily gain support in most of the country, basically destroying the Republican Party as mass defections deplete it's ranks (the Party still survives, but has such a small membership that in most States it has virtually no chance of winning). In most of the country, they (along with like-minded Democrats and Independents) now form a majority of the voters in most of the country. In one section of the country, however (let's say New England, just for fun), they have virtually no support at all.

In the national election, the Evangelical Christian Morality Party runs a candidate who is on record as stating that "A house divided against itself cannot stand...this country must become all one thing or all another...either abortion will be allowed anywhere and for any reason, or it will be allowed nowhere." During the months leading up to the election, of course, this candidate tones down the anti-abortion rhetoric hoping to gain electoral votes in New England. But people in New England know what he really stands for.

In addition, let's throw in some equivalents to the tariff issue and other issues which the South opposed in the 1860 Republican platform. So let's say that the platform of the Evangelical Christian Morality Party calls for a ban on the sale and use of contraceptives, as well as changes in the tax laws designed to force working women to return to the home.

The Evangelical Christian Morality Party wins the election, carrying no New England States but winning most of the others (except for a few who voted Republican hoping a compromise). Before the new President even takes office, the Evangelical Christian Morality majority in Congress passes the first laws aimed at carrying out it's platform...they pass a law banning contraceptive drugs and devices from being sold in the U.S. And, to top it off, the person the President-elect chooses as his Secretary of State is another extremist who has publicly stated that "there is a higher law than the Constitution," indicating that the Evangelical Christian Morality Party does not intend to let the Constitution get in the way of it's plans to carry out it's platform.

New England knows that it has been outvoted in Congress for about a decade now. The only check on the unrestrained power of the anti-abortionist evangelical Christian majority which prevails in most of the country has been the President, and now they hold that too.

Does the majority have the right to impose it's will on New England? Does New England have the right to secede in order to remove itself from the tyranny of the majority?

Substitute the South for New England, the Republican Party for the Evangelical Christian Morality Party, the slavery issue for the abortion issue, and tariffs for contraceptives, and you basically have, in a nutshell, the situation faced by the South following the 1860 elections.

 

[TyrannusZero]

To what do you refer? The Supreme Court? You do realize, of course, that if a party takes control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, they can change the composition of the Supreme Court by increasing the number of Justices? FDR tried that in the 1930s, and fortunately for the country, he did not have a majority in Congress which would go along with him.



Okay, so let's make the analogy more exact. Try this scenario on for size.

The Evangelical Christian Morality Party is formed, opposing abortion. They steadily gain support in most of the country, basically destroying the Republican Party as mass defections deplete it's ranks (the Party still survives, but has such a small membership that in most States it has virtually no chance of winning). In most of the country, they (along with like-minded Democrats and Independents) now form a majority of the voters in most of the country. In one section of the country, however (let's say New England, just for fun), they have virtually no support at all.

In the national election, the Evangelical Christian Morality Party runs a candidate who is on record as stating that "A house divided against itself cannot stand...this country must become all one thing or all another...either abortion will be allowed anywhere and for any reason, or it will be allowed nowhere." During the months leading up to the election, of course, this candidate tones down the anti-abortion rhetoric hoping to gain electoral votes in New England. But people in New England know what he really stands for.

In addition, let's throw in some equivalents to the tariff issue and other issues which the South opposed in the 1860 Republican platform. So let's say that the platform of the Evangelical Christian Morality Party calls for a ban on the sale and use of contraceptives, as well as changes in the tax laws designed to force working women to return to the home.

The Evangelical Christian Morality Party wins the election, carrying no New England States but winning most of the others (except for a few who voted Republican hoping a compromise). Before the new President even takes office, the Evangelical Christian Morality majority in Congress passes the first laws aimed at carrying out it's platform...they pass a law banning contraceptive drugs and devices from being sold in the U.S. And, to top it off, the person the President-elect chooses as his Secretary of State is another extremist who has publicly stated that "there is a higher law than the Constitution," indicating that the Evangelical Christian Morality Party does not intend to let the Constitution get in the way of it's plans to carry out it's platform.

New England knows that it has been outvoted in Congress for about a decade now. The only check on the unrestrained power of the anti-abortionist evangelical Christian majority which prevails in most of the country has been the President, and now they hold that too.

Does the majority have the right to impose it's will on New England? Does New England have the right to secede in order to remove itself from the tyranny of the majority?

Substitute the South for New England, the Republican Party for the Evangelical Christian Morality Party, the slavery issue for the abortion issue, and tariffs for contraceptives, and you basically have, in a nutshell, the situation faced by the South following the 1860 elections.

So as long as the majority always go along with the minority or can tolerate each other, everything is ok.

 

[Homer]

Substitute the South for New England, the Republican Party for the Evangelical Christian Morality Party, the slavery issue for the abortion issue, and tariffs for contraceptives, and you basically have, in a nutshell, the situation faced by the South following the 1860 elections.

First, there's a bit a problem in the moral point: I think pro-slavery is from a morale point of view inferior to anti-slavery even at that time. Abortion is a bit more complex...

But let's assume New England really secedes. Let's assume furthermore there would be some minor skirmishes, followed by a peace treaty. Between the new states. The Evangelical Christian Morality Party President accepts independence of New England, where abortion is still legal.

In the eyes of the christian, anti-abolitionist rest of the country, what would New England be? Maybe Traitors?
Would the president which let those abortionists go away be reelected?

And now let's assume that thousands of women travel to independent New England each year to have an abortion. Wouldn't that cause increasing tensions between the states? Wouldn't the US try to enforce end of abortion even in independent New England?

 

[Max Sinister]

This hypothetical US would have to conquer half the free world to stop abortion, starting with Canada and Mexico (as usual). Hm, abortion's bad, but making war isn't?

 

[Douglas]

And now let's assume that thousands of women travel to independent New England each year to have an abortion. Wouldn't that cause increasing tensions between the states? Wouldn't the US try to enforce end of abortion even in independent New England?

That's a confused analogy. That would be the same as if thousands of citizens of the US traveled to the CS to own slaves.

And even if it wasn't, would the majority of the rest of the US be willing to start a war of conquest with New England over the issue? Of course not.

 

[Faeelin]

Substitute the South for New England, the Republican Party for the Evangelical Christian Morality Party, the slavery issue for the abortion issue, and tariffs for contraceptives, and you basically have, in a nutshell, the situation faced by the South following the 1860 elections.

Nah, I think I'll stick with a world where the issue was slavery, a clear cut moral wrong.

Clever analogy though.

 

[Keenir]

Nah, I think I'll stick with a world where the issue was slavery, a clear cut moral wrong.

do you have any pets?

if you do, do you plan to liberate them?

dogs belong in the wild, and will go feral at the first opportunity -- ergo, we should not enslave (keep as pets) dogs.

I know what you're going to say: that a dog (a slave) is not the same as a wolf (a free man), therefore the analogy is faulty....it is faulty, through the eyes of late 20th Century America....through the eyes of early- and mid-19th Century America, there was no fault in the analogy.

 

[Blochead]

do you have any pets?

if you do, do you plan to liberate them?

dogs belong in the wild, and will go feral at the first opportunity -- ergo, we should not enslave (keep as pets) dogs.

I know what you're going to say: that a dog (a slave) is not the same as a wolf (a free man), therefore the analogy is faulty....it is faulty, through the eyes of late 20th Century America....through the eyes of early- and mid-19th Century America, there was no fault in the analogy.

You keep living in this bizarro ATL where the major political philosophers universally loved slavery up until the 20th Century. Next you're going to tell me that the abolitionist Republicans and the Liberals who manumitted slavery in the British Empire were an 'oddity' among Western nations and didn't exist!

 

[Keenir]

You keep living in this bizarro ATL where the major political philosophers universally loved slavery up until the 20th Century.

Show me where I used the word "love".

Next you're going to tell me that the abolitionist Republicans and the Liberals who manumitted slavery in the British Empire were an 'oddity' among Western nations and didn't exist!

I'm not saying they didn't exist.

I'm saying that they lived in the British Empire -- while the US (even the Union parts) saw non-Whites as lesser beings (the whole "they can't govern themselves") well into the 20th Century.

 

[Blochead]

I'm not saying they didn't exist.

I'm saying that they lived in the British Empire -- while the US (even the Union parts) saw non-Whites as lesser beings (the whole "they can't govern themselves") well into the 20th Century.

Again, you instantly equate viewing Blacks as lesser beings as contrary to abolitionism. That. Is. Not. True.

Most of those Radical Republicans thought Blacks were 'inferior' too. Does that mean they supported slavery? They most certainly did not. The fact is that the burden of proof shows that abolitionism was widely supported by governments and people alike by the end of the Civil War, and even before it. I'm not going to argue about equal rights because that simply isn't the argument. Even by 19th Century standards, even in America, slavery was still immoral or at the very least opposed. Which is exactly why it's incomparable to pets, where today only a handful of people find owning pets objectionable. The proportions aren't nearly as close.

 

[Keenir]

Again, you instantly equate viewing Blacks as lesser beings as contrary to abolitionism. That. Is. Not. True.

Most of those Radical Republicans thought Blacks were 'inferior' too. Does that mean they supported slavery? They most certainly did not. The fact is that the burden of proof shows that abolitionism was widely supported by governments and people alike by the end of the Civil War, and even before it. I'm not going to argue about equal rights because that simply isn't the argument. Even by 19th Century standards, even in America, slavery was still immoral or at the very least opposed. Which is exactly why it's incomparable to pets, where today only a handful of people find owning pets objectionable. The proportions aren't nearly as close.

Fine. What would you consider a fair analogy to the situation in a post-Civil War world?

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Fine. What would you consider a fair analogy to the situation in a post-Civil War world?

Can an analogy be made to keeping people in slavery on the basis of (mostly artificial) racial classification?

 

[MrP]

I can't think of too many people who oppose pets. I was leafing through some old magazines earlier, and I did read an article on speciesism - apparently there are old speciesists and new specieisists - the former just see all animals as innately inferior to and less worthy than humans, the latter add apes to the human side. When the proportion of radical vegans reaches the level of abolitionists in the ACW era, it might be a good analogy. There are sixty odd million people in the UK. Vegans of all stripes* constitute about 0.25 million. There's not much chance of it ever being a valid comparison.

* In case anyone gets narked, I merely report what I was reading - I don't subscribe to it. So even the tiny fraction of people who are vegan aren't all supporters of such an idea. Been thinking about getting a new pet bunny, actually.

 

[htgriffin]

Okay, so let's make the analogy more exact. Try this scenario on for size.

The Evangelical Christian Morality Party is formed, opposing abortion. They steadily gain support in most of the country, basically destroying the Republican Party as mass defections deplete it's ranks (the Party still survives, but has such a small membership that in most States it has virtually no chance of winning). In most of the country, they (along with like-minded Democrats and Independents) now form a majority of the voters in most of the country. In one section of the country, however (let's say New England, just for fun), they have virtually no support at all.

In the national election, the Evangelical Christian Morality Party runs a candidate who is on record as stating that "A house divided against itself cannot stand...this country must become all one thing or all another...either abortion will be allowed anywhere and for any reason, or it will be allowed nowhere." During the months leading up to the election, of course, this candidate tones down the anti-abortion rhetoric hoping to gain electoral votes in New England. But people in New England know what he really stands for.

In addition, let's throw in some equivalents to the tariff issue and other issues which the South opposed in the 1860 Republican platform. So let's say that the platform of the Evangelical Christian Morality Party calls for a ban on the sale and use of contraceptives, as well as changes in the tax laws designed to force working women to return to the home.

The Evangelical Christian Morality Party wins the election, carrying no New England States but winning most of the others (except for a few who voted Republican hoping a compromise). Before the new President even takes office, the Evangelical Christian Morality majority in Congress passes the first laws aimed at carrying out it's platform...they pass a law banning contraceptive drugs and devices from being sold in the U.S. And, to top it off, the person the President-elect chooses as his Secretary of State is another extremist who has publicly stated that "there is a higher law than the Constitution," indicating that the Evangelical Christian Morality Party does not intend to let the Constitution get in the way of it's plans to carry out it's platform.

New England knows that it has been outvoted in Congress for about a decade now. The only check on the unrestrained power of the anti-abortionist evangelical Christian majority which prevails in most of the country has been the President, and now they hold that too.

Does the majority have the right to impose it's will on New England? Does New England have the right to secede in order to remove itself from the tyranny of the majority?

Nope.

Especially when the Supreme Court had only recently ruled that no laws against Abortion can be enforced against residents of a state that had it legalized... and 'New England' still held a solid third of the House despite a lower population of voters.

(And yes, you have managed to offend me by equating Birth Control and Slavery. Next question?)

HTG

 

[Smaug]

Here I thought it was States Rights and Economics. I suppose Racial equality was the first thing on the Norths mind. OK, not so much.

Lets be honest, the North used Black Folks as Cannon Fodder, thats kinda ruffuss.....just sayin

 

[Susano]

Fine. What would you consider a fair analogy to the situation in a post-Civil War world?

How about the sodomy laws some states still have, but whicjh arent enforced due to SCOTUS ruling?

I would think most people in the USA find those old laws laughable. But they still do exist, and some find them reasonable. So, lets imagine SCOTUS hadnt decided on that issue, but that somehow around 2000 there is a liberal Democratic President, and a liberal Democratic majority in Congress. Those liberal Democrats now want to put an end to thsoe sodomy laws once and for all. The conservative Bible Belt and Prarie states object, wanting to keep the old, obscure laws that are morally opposed by a majority of people, and secede.

I think THAT would be a good analogy.

 

[robertp6165]

Nope.

Especially when the Supreme Court had only recently ruled that no laws against Abortion can be enforced against residents of a state that had it legalized...

As mentioned in a previous post, the Supreme Court is no protection if the other branches of government decide to override it. The Executive can simply refuse to enforce Supreme Court rulings (Andrew Jackson) or can conspire with Congress to pack the Court with friendly justices (FDR).

and 'New England' still held a solid third of the House despite a lower population of voters.

Which means what? They are still an outvoted minority which can now have their rights taken away by the majority.

(And yes, you have managed to offend me by equating Birth Control and Slavery. Next question?)

Actually, to be technically correct, I equated birth control (contraceptives) with tariffs, not slavery. I equated ABORTION with slavery. Abortion is NOT birth control...it is disposing of the unwanted results of NOT using birth control.

And there are very sound moral reasons for equating the two. If you think slavery was worse than murder (which is what abortion is, as far as I'm concerned), then you deserve to be offended.

 

[Faeelin]

I know what you're going to say: that a dog (a slave) is not the same as a wolf (a free man), therefore the analogy is faulty....it is faulty, through the eyes of late 20th Century America....through the eyes of early- and mid-19th Century America, there was no fault in the analogy.

Then the abolitionist movement was supported by Martians?

 

[Faeelin]

And there are very sound moral reasons for equating the two. If you think slavery was worse than murder (which is what abortion is, as far as I'm concerned), then you deserve to be offended.

Oh, man, you had to go and say this didn't you?

 

[Max Sinister]

@robert: I said nothing yet, but this comparison is out of way. You talk about abortion as if it was killing babies, but as a matter of fact, a fertilized egg or an embryo in an early stadium isn't a full-developed baby. I don't know when they start to feel pain, but certainly not from the first moment.