The right to life and constitutional law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And as long as we are quoting Blackstone

As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of reliques and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.

I guess we'll have to assume Blackstone correct because of his reputation?

[Zkribbler]

Well that, and he has a really cool name.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I never knew you to be such an apologist for hypocrisy before, MrFun. Or is it just because these are your sacred cows? Do you also think George W. Bush is sincere when he talks about reducing oil dependancy, but the circumstance that he is in means that he can't do anything about oil consumption?

Thomas Jefferson is not one of my "sacred cows."


That Jefferson was a racist is unquestionable -- I certainly don't see him as a perfect, god-like, flawless historical figure. But the law of Virginia prohibited him from freeing his slaves as a couple of others here have pointed out.

Another example -- the circumstance of the Civil War finally gave Lincoln a wedge through which he could act upon his moral objection against slavery (presidential wartime powers)-- does that mean before the war, when he spoke out against slavery, but did nothing because he could not do anything legally, that he was a cynical hypocrite?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lincoln never owned slaves. He couldn't do anything personally about it except speak out (though I disagree that he really was against slavery until it was politically expedient).

And as Doc said, it may not have been illegal to free slaves in Virginia during Jefferson's life. And if it was, wasn't Jefferson Governor of Virginia at one point and one of the biggest names in the state? What if he said they all escaped, do you think they would have prosecuted him?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Lincoln never owned slaves. He couldn't do anything personally about it except speak out (though I disagree that he really was against slavery until it was politically expedient).

And as Doc said, it may not have been illegal to free slaves in Virginia during Jefferson's life. And if it was, wasn't Jefferson Governor of Virginia at one point and one of the biggest names in the state? What if he said they all escaped, do you think they would have prosecuted him?

I've read plenty of books on Abraham Lincoln from different perspectives the past three years or so. I agree with the argument that Lincoln opposed slavery and he thought he had the strongest case in legaly challenging it with proposed laws against its extension into western territories. Tell me when exactly you think it became "politically expedient" for Lincoln to speak out against slavery, because he started speaking out against the system in the late 1830s.

And now you want to play a "what-if" game, in regards to Jefferson and his power as governor?

[Berzerker]

inalienable rights are moral claims, this is what separates them from whatever rights you might get from "society" or whomever is in charge.

so, what happens if I try to murder you and you kill me in self defense? Have you deprived me of my right to live? I was trying to deprive you of your life. That puts our right to live in conflict. So whose right to live should be honored? The victim... Now, do you think the minds that produced our system were unaware of this conflict?

[Zkribbler]

...er...who are you addressing?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is interesting that Lincoln's first move against slavery was a largely symbolic Emancipation Proclimation that did basically nothing in actuallity.

As to Jefferson, do you think a state would prosecute a man who was the 2nd governor of the state and a founder of the US for releasing his slaves? Really? Especially if he said something like they all escaped? Or brought them to, say, New York and then there let them go?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is interesting that Lincoln's first move against slavery was a largely symbolic Emancipation Proclimation that did basically nothing in actuallity.

[Pres. Clinton mode]
It depends upon what you definition of "basically nothing" is.
[/Pres. Clinton mode]

Issuing the Emancipation Proclimation turned the Civil War into a moral crusade and kept the English and French from intervening on the side of the South.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
[Pres. Clinton mode]
It depends upon what you definition of "basically nothing" is.
[/Pres. Clinton mode]

Issuing the Emancipation Proclimation turned the Civil War into a moral crusade and kept the English and French from intervening on the side of the South.

That's what I meant by 'largely symbolic'. True, I did have to clarify what I meant by basically nothing. What I mean is that it had no direct effects, but had the indirect effect of preventing Europe from entering. Yeah, the EP was a propaganda piece as well.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It is interesting that Lincoln's first move against slavery was a largely symbolic Emancipation Proclimation that did basically nothing in actuallity.

As to Jefferson, do you think a state would prosecute a man who was the 2nd governor of the state and a founder of the US for releasing his slaves? Really? Especially if he said something like they all escaped? Or brought them to, say, New York and then there let them go?

Sigh -- so much ignorance about the history of the Emancipation Proclamation -- to the point that it is largely denigrated and grossly depcreciated.

Something like 200,000 to 300,000 blacks secured their own freedom by fleeing to Union lines and Union-occupied territory once they had knowledge of the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Emancipation Proclamation also seriously undermined the economic infrastructure of the Confederacy. Also, Lincoln hoped that the principle underlying the EP would remain permanent -- even after the war (read Lincoln's Conkling letter). In that letter, Lincoln stated that the principle of freedom found within the EP ought to remain a law of the republic after the war.

The EP also allowed for the increased recruitment of blacks for the Union army in addition to any black militia that were already being put into service.

The EP had done plenty in terms of real, concrete, meaningful results for blacks in the South during the war, and had indefinite, positive, repercussions after the war ended.


As for your "what-if" game in what Jefferson could have done as governor. Who is to say if Jefferson would have had the gall to circumvent the laws of his own state? How would we ever know with this "what-if" scenario?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


That's what I meant by 'largely symbolic'. True, I did have to clarify what I meant by basically nothing. What I mean is that it had no direct effects, but had the indirect effect of preventing Europe from entering. Yeah, the EP was a propaganda piece as well.

Supposedly it also kept Maryland in the union. They'd been thinking of switching sides, but suddenly they were faced with a proclaimation freeing the slaves in the territories in rebellion...it gave them pause.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The EP had done plenty in terms of real, concrete, meaningful results for blacks in the South during the war, and had indefinite, positive, repercussions after the war ended.

It is awfully telling that the EP only applied to those areas under Southern control and not Northern areas. Let's be serious now, the reasons for it were entirely political. Any other attributes are total mythology.

As for your "what-if" game in what Jefferson could have done as governor.

When I did say Jefferson was doing something as Governor?

Who is to say if Jefferson would have had the gall to circumvent the laws of his own state?

He advocated rebellion against his home country!! And he doesn't have the gall to circumvent the laws of the state of Virginia over releasing slaves?! WTF?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Supposedly it also kept Maryland in the union. They'd been thinking of switching sides, but suddenly they were faced with a proclaimation freeing the slaves in the territories in rebellion...it gave them pause.

Well Maryland almost left at the beginning of the war when everyone was leaving, but Lincoln basically put the state under martial law. I don't think Maryland had much power late in the war to leave, what with Union troops all over the state. It had at least less power to leave than it did before the war.

[Zkribbler]

On the other hand, at one point, Jubal Early pressed to the outskirts of Washington D.C. itself.

But on the whole, I agree with you: If Maryland had decided to switch sides, there were much more dire and immediate consequences facing it than just some words on paper. Ohhh, words on papers.