How do you or did perceive candidate Trump's position on abortion

[Szdfan]

Except that is completely ahistorical.

Just because something doesn't agree with your point of view doesn't make it "ahistorical".

Take away the south choosing to start and fight a war of secession to expand slavery and the civil war doesn’t happen. The abolitionist movement in the north certainly didn’t have the ability to start and fight a civil war over slavery on their own. Nor would they have.

And don't forget that the South was allowed to re-establish a system of racial hierarchy after the Civil War during Reconstruction

[justme]

Just because something doesn't agree with your point of view doesn't make it "ahistorical".

true
but this is just as true,

Just because something agrees with your point of view does not make it accurate.

[joshuabgood]

Except that is completely ahistorical.

Just because something doesn't agree with your point of view doesn't make it "ahistorical".

Take away the south choosing to start and fight a war of secession to expand slavery and the civil war doesn’t happen. The abolitionist movement in the north certainly didn’t have the ability to start and fight a civil war over slavery on their own. Nor would they have.

Well...don't forget Harper's Ferry. That was the goal.

[Ken]

Just because something doesn't agree with your point of view doesn't make it "ahistorical".

Take away the south choosing to start and fight a war of secession to expand slavery and the civil war doesn’t happen. The abolitionist movement in the north certainly didn’t have the ability to start and fight a civil war over slavery on their own. Nor would they have.

Well...don't forget Harper's Ferry. That was the goal.

Well it was 22 men led by a pretty insanely radical revolutionary. They were quickly put down by the US Marines and most were killed or executed. It was most certainly not part of the wider abolitionist movement which was more of a middle class religious thing intent on political persuasion not violent overthrow of the south or instigation of slave rebellions.

The south certainly used it as part of their excuse to secede and go to war. But that was more of a manufactured excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway. Like 9-11 and WMD being used as an excuse to invade Iraq. Or Nazism being used as an excuse for Russia to invade Ukraine.

[joshuabgood]

Take away the south choosing to start and fight a war of secession to expand slavery and the civil war doesn’t happen. The abolitionist movement in the north certainly didn’t have the ability to start and fight a civil war over slavery on their own. Nor would they have.

Well...don't forget Harper's Ferry. That was the goal.

Well it was 22 men led by a pretty insanely radical revolutionary. They were quickly put down by the US Marines and most were killed or executed. It was most certainly not part of the wider abolitionist movement which was more of a middle class religious thing intent on political persuasion not violent overthrow of the south or instigation of slave rebellions.

The south certainly used it as part of their excuse to secede and go to war. But that was more of a manufactured excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway. Like 9-11 and WMD being used as an excuse to invade Iraq. Or Nazism being used as an excuse for Russia to invade Ukraine.

He wasn't a revolutionary per se, he was a radical abolitionist. And songs were written about him and sung by the Union army...

[barnhart]

Unitary theories of history often prove too fragile to stand up over time, new information has a way of eroding simple claims. Lincoln himself was famously weak on abolition. He and wrote and spoke about "saving the union" as the true goal of the war while delaying emancipation until very late when union spirit was sagging. Even then he applied it in a half hearted manner that suggests he wasn't completely bought in as a moral principle.

If you need further evidence of the ambivalence of the Union leadership around abolition, visit Lincoln's memorial, go into the little room where his most memorable words are carved in stone and read the quote where he says plainly his goal is to save the Union, if all slaves are freed, if some and not others or if none at all, "I would still save the Union". To summarize in current lingo, black lives don't matter at all.

[temporal1]

.. It means that the anti-abortion forces [pro life supporters] should be looking to build social consensus for their position if they want to see permanent change. Passing an unpopular law is not going to achieve all that much if people are just going to overturn it through popular initiative. ..

.. he said, smugly. Sans smug .. i agree.

The scales are grossly tipped.
Noting (but not focusing on) the existence of unapologetic lib bias in all mainstream reporting, my first choice for change in puruit of BALANCE in (ahem) “social consensus” would be in EDUCATION, especially wrt public funded education.

Political bias in education is beyond skewed. Off the charts.

“Why Are Teachers Mostly Liberal?”
https://www.pacificresearch.org/why-are ... y-liberal/

The Harvard Crimson / “More than 80 Percent of Surveyed Harvard Faculty Identify as Liberal”
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022 ... l-leaning/

Literally, when the matter of grossly tipped scales in government, media AND education are considered - - -
it’s nothing short of a miracle conservative voices achieve any rank at all in election results.

It’s a David and Goliath scenario, if ever there was one.

With this in mind, lib policies must be WILDLY unpopular! Or there could be nothing to debate.

The only possible conclusion is that Truth, morality, hope, in the face of the greatest earthly obstacles, endures.
There is no human reasoning to cover it. It’s evidence of power and promise of the Spirit.

Proverbs 16:18
https://biblehub.com/proverbs/16-18.htm

17The highway of the upright leads away from evil; he who guards his way protects his life.

18Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

19It is better to be lowly in spirit among the humble than to divide the spoil with the proud.…

Pray for the protection and guidance of the Spirit.

[joshuabgood]

Unitary theories of history often prove too fragile to stand up over time, new information has a way of eroding simple claims. Lincoln himself was famously weak on abolition. He and wrote and spoke about "saving the union" as the true goal of the war while delaying emancipation until very late when union spirit was sagging. Even then he applied it in a half hearted manner that suggests he wasn't completely bought in as a moral principle.

If you need further evidence of the ambivalence of the Union leadership around abolition, visit Lincoln's memorial, go into the little room where his most memorable words are carved in stone and read the quote where he says plainly his goal is to save the Union, if all slaves are freed, if some and not others or if none at all, "I would still save the Union". To summarize in current lingo, black lives don't matter at all.

Like all politicians, he said different things at different times for political expediency.

[temporal1]

.. To summarize in current lingo, black lives don't matter at all.

i’m not a Civil War or Lincoln expert, but i disagree.
i agree this is the sort of cheap stab that would be taken today .. no doubt. however, i think it’s wrong-spirited to read such cruel intent into these words, “gotcha” style, Lincoln’s not present to explain.

Lincoln carried a heavy load, and, i believe he suffered with depression. (to me) his words reflect deep sorrow.
to speculate on the other side, he may have believed the best end for all, would have been to preserve the Union.
his words reflect the desperation of war, and the weight of being a leader in it. i do not envy.

sorry to have such a harsh response.
i lack patience for current political speculation (that always points in one direction).
when that happens, it suggests more depth would enhance the discussion.

[Josh]

.. To summarize in current lingo, black lives don't matter at all.

i’m not a Civil War or Lincoln expert, but i disagree.
i agree this is the sort of cheap stab that would be taken today .. no doubt. however, i think it’s wrong-spirited to read such cruel intent into these words, “gotcha” style, Lincoln’s not present to explain.

Lincoln carried a heavy load, and, i believe he suffered with depression. (to me) his words reflect deep sorrow.
to speculate on the other side, he may have believed the best end for all, would have been to preserve the Union.
his words reflect the desperation of war, and the weight of being a leader in it. i do not envy.

sorry to have such a harsh response.
i lack patience for current political speculation (that always points in one direction).
when that happens, it suggests more depth would enhance the discussion.

A President can engage in a civil war to ensure the freedom of slaves and then end up assassinated in the end for it, and then some people will respond with “He didn’t do enough”.

Kind of ridiculous and disrespectful. Maybe next we’ll hear how all the Union soldiers who died and their families didn’t do enough either.