Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LKO who wrote (47518)	12/13/2004 8:58:40 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

Some may call that an incorrect interpretation based on reading the same text. Some certainly might, but they'd be as wrong as those who claim that the Civil War had anything to do with 'egalitarianism.' King Lincoln may just be sucking up to Mr. Greely and lying like any successful politician to keep allies. Certainly. However, other facts strongly suggest that egalitarianism wasn't the prime mover, here: Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not "interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states" (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union "with the rights of the several states unimpaired." At the time of Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) only the seven states of the deep South had seceded. There were more slaves in the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them. The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect "the duties and imposts," and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that "the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed" in the states that had seceded. lewrockwell.com; The same King Lincoln also said in the Gettysberg Address...(citing) [A]ll men are created equal... That's a curious statement. Does quoting the Declaration of Independence imply sincerity whilst simultaneously suspending habeas corpus, shutting down opposition newspapers, launching a draft which the wealthy could buy their way out of and - lest we forget - making clear that slavery as an also-ran, secondary issue where restoring the Union was concerned? More importantly: does the clause "all men are created equal" suggest egalitarianism? e