Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrewste
I know, right! Stupid emancipation proclamation!
I assume that means the states shouldn't have a say either? That means there should be no regulation on abortion, drugs, same-sex marriage, and anything else that deals with personal lives. The problem with Paul's views on that, and that the modern party he belongs to, is that many staunch republicans favor those kind of blanket bans.
|
In 1862, Lincoln published a letter stating, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
Really, what Lincoln should have done is let the Confederacy go its own way. Automation and industry was growing rapidly, and would certainly have made slave labor more expensive than the alternatives, and eventually it would have collapsed under its own inefficiency. Most likely, the southern states would have re-joined the Union over the course of a few decades for economic advantage and protection from Mexico and other foriegn powers. IT WOULD BE CHEAPER TO BUY BACK ALL THE SLAVES THAN KILL 600,000 AMERICANS..
Lincoln suspended a lot of constituitional rights, increased taxes, etc..
Seccession was a legal process..
Read some articles here (books, too, but I doubt you'd do that):
King Lincoln Archive
_______________________________________
I think that abortion, drugs---everything should be legal.. That's my views as more of an anarcho-capitalist..
But yes, if regulation is to occur-- the states decide not the federal govt. I should had made that clear, sorry.