pudge's Journal: Lincoln Was Pro-Slavery

Mike McGavick, Republican candidate from Washington for the U.S. Senate, has a common view of abortion. He wants to restrict it -- he favors requiring parental consent, banning late-term abortions, no federal funds -- and he believes that abortion is wrong.

But he would not abolish it by law. He wants to get rid of abortion gradually, recognizing the fact that the law of the land protects the right to abortion, and that the people simply won't accept a law banning it.

Many on the far right -- and I don't use that term pejoratively, because I am on the far right -- believe that this means he is pro-choice, that he is no different from current Senator Maria Cantwell (even though, on its face, that's false, as she opposes such restrictions as he favors).

But more importantly, is this a valid position? History may be instructive. A certain other Republican was running for the Senate too, 150 years ago, and he said that slavery should be restricted: it should not be allowed to spread, we should not open up the slave trade again, and so on. But we should keep it safe and legal: don't change the law any time soon, and do protect the rights of slaveowners. He said:

When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. ... It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.

There's nothing new or outrageous about a position which recognizes a terrible societal ill, and says we should not abolish it immediately simply because the cure would likely be worse than the disease.

Of course, Lincoln was not elected that year. And when he became President, he could not prevent secession, despite his willingness to keep slavery alive in the South. So maybe this is not the best position to have.

It's intellectually dishonest

[RailGunner]

So maybe this is not the best position to have.

It's not - because it's (IMHO) intellectually dishonest. If one believes (as I do) that human life begins at conception, and believes that human life ought to be preserved whenever possible, then one cannot support keeping abortion legal.

It's akin to saying "Well, assault and battery is wrong, you shouldn't just go around wailing on people, but I don't support a law to ban it."

Especially because in both instances, there is a victim that is done harm, in ab

Re:It's intellectually dishonest

[pudge]

It's not - because it's (IMHO) intellectually dishonest.

I think it is intellectually dishonest to say it is intellectually dishonest.

If one believes (as I do) that human life begins at conception, and believes that human life ought to be preserved whenever possible, then one cannot support keeping abortion legal.

Says you. "If one believes that negroes have unalienable rights, and believes that those rights ought to be protected by government, then one cannot support keeping slavery illegal." Yet Lincoln d

Re:It's intellectually dishonest

[RailGunner]

Maybe you are saying Lincoln was wrong, and that's fair.

Yes, I was saying Lincoln was wrong. Slavery was abhorrent, just as abortion is now, if an action, or an institution, infringes on a person's right to life or liberty, then I believe that as Americans we should oppose that action or institution vigorously.

You are confusing morality and values with intellect.

No, I think they go hand and hand. A person's ability to learn and reason helps that person understand and build on what is fundamentally rig

Re:It's intellectually dishonest

[pudge]

No, I think they go hand and hand. A person's ability to learn and reason helps that person understand and build on what is fundamentally right and wrong; therefore I would suggest that given a core belief, such as "Life begins at conception" and "terminating innocent life is wrong" then it's my opinion that one can't use logic (intellect) to excuse supporting abortion

But there are other core beliefs, like "without Union, this country will fall."

Life is messy. Sometimes there is no path to follow where eve

Re:It's intellectually dishonest

[Jhon]

It's not - because it's (IMHO) intellectually dishonest. If one believes (as I do) that human life begins at conception, and believes that human life ought to be preserved whenever possible, then one cannot support keeping abortion legal.

The problem with this view on both sides is that it is SO polarizing that it creates paralysis within the legislature. We're seeing that now. And worse -- it could lead to such an ideological split that it could affect another civil war. Remember, similar reasoning wa

Re:It's intellectually dishonest

[John Harrison]

The problem with this view on both sides is that it is SO polarizing that it creates paralysis within the legislature. We're seeing that now. And worse -- it could lead to such an ideological split that it could affect another civil war. Remember, similar reasoning was used on both sides of the slavery issue.


The problem isn't paralysis in the legislature. The problem is that the country is deadlocked over this one issue and politicians know that very little is going to happen on it, yet they grandstand abo

Re:It's intellectually dishonest

[Jhon]

The problem isn't paralysis in the legislature. The problem is that the country is deadlocked over this one issue

It's kind of the same thing. Flush out what you said and it basically reiterates what I said.

Re:It's intellectually dishonest

[John Harrison]

sort of, though in a way I am contradicting you. I am saying that there isn't legislative paralysis because legislators know that they are just using the issue for elections. The problem isn't legislative paralysis. The problem is that we elect people to the legislature based on their claimed positions on this issue and they've made bad faith promises to do something about it knowing that nothing will happen. We're electing the wrong people because of this. We're focusing on one issue to the exclusion

Non-hereditary slavery

[jdavidb]

Did anyone ever discuss the possibility of making the children of slaves automatically free, legally attaching them to their parents for the duration of their childhood (prohibit separation), and giving their parents the minimal right to raise them until their free adulthood?