Mitch McConnell: Tea Party Is "Ruining" GOP

Post Reply New Topic

"So I am less than impressed by the late-term abortion argument for repealing Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey replaced the 28/24 week threshold set by Wade v. Roe with an "Undue Burden" standard that allowed States to limit access to abortion even at earlier stages of pregnancy."

So a 9-10% rate of late abortions is an acceptable figure in your opinion? Moreover, according to your former reasoning, do you find Planned Parenthood vs. Casey to be a regression in human rights and of limited government infringement?

Actually, slavery was being strangled in an anaconda choke hold with leaving the status of each western state and territory as either slave or free up to popular vote. One of the Confederacy's long term goals had been to circumvent that with succession, in order to expand into Mexico, and Central and South America in order to keep slavery alive with new land for cotton fields. The Confederates had no intention of allowing slavery to die away.
And as far as southern slavery resembling serfdom - I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. European serfs of old were tied to the land and owed labor and produce to the landlord, but were hardly chattel to be bought and sold, and had no fear of having their families divided. As a matter of fact, share cropping, which replaced slavery and encompassed both freed slaves and poor whites, had much more in common with serfdom. And it ought to be remembered, serf rebellions were very common, as the serfs saw themselves little better off than slaves.
And while I don't doubt that many poor whites had supported the Confederacy, the fact remains that those opposed it were more than just Texas Germans. Newt Knight - a Mississippian with an Anglo-Saxon name - as well as his small guerrilla army made up of Confederate army deserters and and escaped slaves, were hardly Texas Germans.

Actually, the abomination of Dred Scott was a major cause of the Civil War. What this decision in effect said was that slaves were personal property, and it was a violation of the property rights of slaveholders not to let them have their property wherever they wished. In effect, had this decision been carried out, it would have made all states slave states. Most Southerners were actually opposed to this abomination, as it negated the Somersett precedent which had governed slavery laws since before the country's founding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_at_common_law

As far as the Confederacy expanding, you are half right. There was a group called the Golden Circle, the most radical of whom did advocate expanding in to Mexico. But most of them would have been happy taking over the Caribbean slave strongholds, such as Jamaica and Barbados.

While this movement was hardly universally popular in the South, the more moderate version did make some sense. We are used to hearing about the original thirteen colonies, but there were actually twenty-six if British holdings in the Caribbean and central America are included. Many Southerners thought it was a terrible mistake ever to ally with the northern states for independence. Instead, this group wanted to ally with Britain's Caribbean and central American colonies to form an independent nation that same as northeastern Yankees had their eyes on taking over Canada.

Again, the Golden Circle was far from popular; most Southerners simply wanted to leave the union, whether they owned slaves or not. They were as sick of liberal oppression as modern conservatives are.

As far as the Confederates not allowing slavery to die, why do you think that? Were they all-powerful like God? Or is it possible that they didn't control the events that would have led to the downfall of slavery? Remember, it ended everywhere else peacefully. The difference in the US was intolerant liberalism that wanted to destroy everything and everybody that was different.

You are right that European serfs were tied to the land. That is the major difference between Southern slavery and European serfdom. The primary reason for this difference is that the US wasn't settled, but was expanding westward. And since the Constitution outlawed the importation of slaves in 1808, the existing slave population had to be moved along with the slaveholders.

Actually, serfdom had nothing in common with sharecropping. Sharecroppers had no legal rights to the land, and were removed from it at will. There was also no sense of noblesse oblige present with sharecropping.

As far as serf rebellions were concerned, they did happen, but they were hardly the rule.

As far as serfs not being any better off than slaves, the only place I know that to be the case was Russia. The fact is that in western Europe, serfs had customary rights the same as Southern slaves did. It was in the liberal north that slaves had no rights, and this is why one of the biggest slave revolts in American history took place in NYC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_S ... lt_of_1712

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_C ... cy_of_1741

Wanting to protect America is "hating" it? Do you understand that your question is Orwellian? Do you believe that ignorance is knowledge, slavery is freedom, and war is peace as well?

The german wall was not built to protect from outsiders, but to take away from the own people, the choice of leaving the country, to force an political oppinion on them, that they did not want, in an amount, that even peaceful fleeing and leaving the country, was forbidden to them. The only thing you can compare the wall around germany with, are the chains that Castro put on the feet of the woman he kidnapped, to prevent them from leaving his terror system.

Excellent point. One of the most sobering experiences of my life was getting to see the Iron Curtain right outside of Hamburg. The dissonance between the beautiful, peaceful German countryside and the walls of the world's largest prison house was jarring to the senses and conscience in every way.

What my detractors can't seem to understand is the difference between the locks on your house door and the locks on a jail cell. The communists had to put up walls to keep East Germans in; the US needs them to keep foreigners out. It seems to me to be a difference worth noting.